Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The House entered into hybrid scrutiny proceedings (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Christine Jardine: If he will hold discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on extending the support available under the coronavirus job retention scheme to June 2021 to help support Welsh businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Simon Hart: I am quite surprised by the hon. Lady’s question, as the Government have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme to the end of March. It continues to protect millions of employees across the United Kingdom and has supported over 400,000 jobs in Wales, and in fact 700,000 in Scotland, too.

Christine Jardine: I did welcome and continue to welcome the fact that the job retention scheme has been extended until March, but in fact we would ask that it is extended until June 2021, as that would give businesses sufficient time to plan and to be able to build, considering that we will also come to the end of the transition period. Does the Secretary of State also recognise the need to extend furlough and support to those small companies that so far have had nothing and the self-employed who have been excluded from all support?

Simon Hart: We have to be serious about this, and it seems to me odd that each time we extend the scheme, we are asked to extend it even further. I think that if we extended it to 2050, the hon. Lady would be saying that 2051 would be a more appropriate date. The fact is that the Chancellor has attempted to be as flexible, versatile and dynamic as possible, and hundreds of thousands of people’s jobs have been saved as a result of that flexibility.

Financial Support: Covid-19

Chris Elmore: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial support for people in Wales affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Geraint Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial support for people in Wales affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

Simon Hart: I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on our economic response to covid-19. We have directly provided over £500 million to the self-employed in Wales on top of the £5 billion additional funding guarantee given to the Welsh Government.

Chris Elmore: The pandemic, as the Secretary of State will know, is putting huge financial pressure on constituents right across Wales. Families and communities are hugely impacted, and none more so than those who have been impacted by flooding and by living underneath what are arguably unsafe coal tips. Can the Secretary of State tell us what representations he has made to the Chancellor to make true the Prime Minister’s promise that additional funding will come to Wales to help those families who have been impacted by flooding and to secure the coal tips, including the ones in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Simon Hart: As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been significant movement on the guarantee for the initial important works around Tylorstown. The rest of the funding that has been requested by the Welsh Government is the subject of a national reserve, and that has to be part of the normal estimates process. We have asked the Welsh Government to come forward with their numbers, and a decision on that will be made in due course. However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already indicated that he will look favourably on an application provided it meets the necessary criteria.

Geraint Davies: The lockdown in England of course came after the firebreak in Wales, so will the Secretary of State ensure that Wales gets its full equivalent of the England lockdown through the Barnett consequential formula, so that we get our fair share of funding that can be best deployed by the Welsh Government?

Simon Hart: The sums of money that have been already made available to the Welsh Government under the Barnett scheme are substantial. As the hon. Member knows, at least £5 billion has formed the major bulk of that. What I should also say is that, as far as the additional sums are concerned and the point he makes, the significance of doing this on a UK-wide basis is to minimise the complications and the divergences in policy between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, because that makes that even spread so much more difficult. However, the Chancellor has made available substantial sums of money in advance of the normal Barnett formula, and £1.8 billion is still being sat on by the Welsh Government and is available to spend.

Nia Griffith: Sadly, this week we have seen the Prime Minister’s utter contempt for devolution, yet it is only because of the devolved powers that the Welsh Labour Government were able to heed the scientists’ advice and actually go into the firebreak at the time it could be most effective. As the Secretary of State knows, the Welsh Government called on the Chancellor to extend furlough to support businesses from day one of  the firebreak, so why was it that the Secretary of State failed to secure that support for workers in Wales and why was it only made available after England belatedly followed Wales’s lead into lockdown?

Simon Hart: Again, it is a strange question to be levelling at the UK Government, given the level of support that has been provided. I should remind the hon. Lady that the infection rates per 100,000 in Wales are actually higher than they are in England and testing rates per 100,000 in Wales are lower than they are in England, so this notion that she is attempting to put forward that somehow it has all gone swimmingly well in Wales and not so swimmingly well in England is completely untrue. What it demonstrates is that actually a competition between the two Governments is not the answer; the answer is working together more collaboratively. As far as the Chancellor’s statement is concerned, he made it very clear in a phone call to the First Minister exactly what was possible and what was not, yet for some reason the First Minister decided to press ahead with plans that he knew could not be met by the Treasury in the timescale available.

Nia Griffith: It is strange, and the question is about making such support available for Wales when it needed it. After this Conservative Government’s dither and delay led to a crisis-point lockdown in England, the Chancellor suddenly made the 80% furlough available, but it was not backdated to 23 October for Welsh businesses, whose closure at that point helped to turn the tide on covid numbers in Wales. That is of no help to workers who have been made redundant because of the Government’s refusal to extend furlough, up until the very last day. What will the Secretary of State do to get that furlough backdated and give Welsh businesses and workers the support they deserve?

Simon Hart: The hon. Lady has clearly not had the conversations with Welsh businesses that I have had. I will not go into too much detail on this issue, because we would be going all day, but I have pages of numbers on the contributions that the UK Government have made to Welsh businesses and employees: £1.6 billion of direct support to businesses; 401,000 people protected by furlough, accounting for one in three jobs; £1.47 billion in bounce-back loans; and £530 million in support for the self-employed. The hon. Lady should be getting to her feet and saying, “This is why the Union is important. The UK Government have come to the rescue of so many people and businesses in Wales and the rest of the UK, and that is why they should be collaborated with, assisted and, indeed, thanked for some of the work they have done.”

Liz Saville-Roberts: On top of the economic hardship inflicted by the pandemic, there are only 43 days until the end of the transition period, yet the replacement of key EU funding in Wales remains shrouded in mystery. The shared prosperity fund will reveal where the Government’s principal interests lie. Does the Secretary of State respect Welsh devolution, and if so, will he guarantee that funding decisions will be fully devolved? Anything else will stink of political expediency.

Simon Hart: For the first time in a while, I am rather grateful for the right hon. Lady’s question, because it enables me to point out that of course I thoroughly  support devolution, but that does not mean simply transferring power from Westminster to Cardiff. Devolution means getting decision making done at the closest possible level to where it matters, which is across Wales. That is why I have had conversations with local authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association about the shared prosperity fund, as well as with others, including the Welsh Government. They should be playing a much more active part in the decision making and prioritisation of SPF spending than they have done so far.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Through all those words I will take that as a “no” for devolution in Wales. The Prime Minister and the self-monikered Minister for the Union has said that devolution is a “disaster”, yet a YouGov poll found that 72% of Welsh people do not trust Westminster to look after their best interests. With support for independence gaining speed and traction across Wales, how can the frippery of a Union taskforce overcome the disastrous realities of Westminster’s track record in Wales?

Simon Hart: Devolution is only a disaster when it is hijacked by separatists and when people who expect devolution to deliver jobs and livelihoods discover that all it delivers is a pet project of nationalists to try to break off one part of the UK from another part. If the right hon. Lady wants to talk about polling, I might remind her that the last barometer poll showed that support for Plaid Cymru had dropped by 4% and that support for independence in Wales had dropped by 2%. She should not get too excited about the direction of travel.

Covid-19 Restrictions

Aaron Bell: What comparative assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the covid-19 restrictions implemented in Wales and England.

David Davies: The UK Government work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure a broad UK-wide approach in our response to covid-19. There is consistency across the United Kingdom in the restrictions implemented to tackle the virus, with some divergence to reflect differing rates of transmission.

Aaron Bell: I thank the Minister for his answer. We will get through this pandemic only with a measure of trust between the public, the Government and the Welsh Government. Does he agree that the Welsh Government were wrong to introduce their nanny-state ban on supermarkets selling non-essential items during their lockdown?

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very useful point. Any policy that allows members of the public to buy vodka but not baby food is patently devoid of common sense. By needlessly testing the public’s patience and sowing confusion, the Welsh Government have undermined this Government’s efforts to tackle the virus across the United Kingdom.

Gerald Jones: Following the Welsh Labour Government’s decision to introduce a firebreak lockdown in Wales, coronavirus cases have begun to fall across the board. At the time,  the leader of the Welsh Conservatives described the 17-day lockdown as “unnecessary” and “disproportionate”, yet just days later, the Minister and his Welsh Conservative colleagues voted for a lockdown in England that is at least a fortnight longer and may last longer still. Will the Minister finally join me in welcoming the Welsh Government’s decision? Is it not time for him and his Welsh Conservative colleagues to put party politics to one side and support responsible actions to combat the pandemic that are in the interests of the people of Wales?

David Davies: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the UK Government who have been trying to put party politics to one side. That is why we have invited Ministers from the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government to come to the many meetings that we have been holding in order to develop ways to tackle this virus. The fact of the matter remains, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed out, that cases are higher in Wales and testing is lower than that it is in England, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to do whatever he can to encourage the Welsh Government to work more collaboratively with the UK Government to tackle this virus.

David Jones: As my hon. Friend will know, the border between England and north Wales is densely populated, with many thousands of people travelling across it in both directions every day for work, social and business purposes, and many other purposes too. However, the Welsh Government have sought to close that border, causing considerable inconvenience and disruption to those people. What future arrangements can be put in place to ensure that there is no repetition of this disruption?

David Davies: My right hon. Friend is certainly right that these closures have caused a certain amount of confusion for people living along the border—confusion about whether or not people can travel to and from work, confusion about where they can go to do their shopping, confusion about what sort of shopping they can buy, and confusion about whether or not those who are in a household bubble can go on holiday with each other. The fact of the matter remains that the Welsh Government’s actions have been legal, but I am not sure that they have been sensible.

Job Protection: Covid-19

Sally-Ann Hart: What steps his Department is taking to protect jobs in Wales during the covid-19 outbreak.

David Davies: This Government have taken a broad set of measures to protect jobs in Wales and right across the UK during the covid-19 outbreak. We have shown flexibility, most recently by extending the furlough scheme until the end of March.

Sally-Ann Hart: To what extent have jobs and livelihoods in Wales been protected by the Government’s financial support through the Chancellor’s furlough and self-employed schemes and business grants and loans? Are there other ways that the Welsh Senedd has been supported by the UK Government?

David Davies: The short answer is that they have been protected to an enormous extent as a result of measures brought forward by the UK Government. Over 400,000 people in Wales have benefited from the furlough scheme, £2 billion-worth of financial support has been provided through the UK Government’s self-employment income support scheme, and £5 billion extra has been given to the Welsh Government. Not all that money has yet been spent, so there is plenty more that the Welsh Government could be doing to support businesses and jobs in Wales.

EU Trade Negotiations

Deidre Brock: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues and representatives of the devolved Governments on trade negotiations with the EU.

David Davies: The Secretary of State for Wales and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and Welsh Ministers on a range of issues, including EU trade negotiations. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations meets regularly, and my ministerial colleagues frequently discuss the EU trade negotiations with Ministers from all the devolved Administrations.

Deidre Brock: The comments by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Sunday that sheep farmers should just switch over to beef in the face of higher tariffs have been widely ridiculed in Wales and, indeed, in Scotland—quite a “let them eat cake” moment. Lamb exports are vital not only to farmers but to wider rural communities. What confidence can hill farmers have that the British Government have their interests at heart when it comes to EU trade negotiations after such a ministerial blunder?

David Davies: First of all, I assure the hon. Lady that this Government are working very hard indeed to ensure that we get a full trade deal with the European Union. The second point to remember is that her party has voted against or abstained on every single trade deal that has been put forward for the last 15 years. The third point that I put to her is that the UK Government have already shown over and again how much support they will give to any industry that gets into any kind of trouble as a result of covid, or indeed, as a result of anything else. She can rest assured that we are doing everything possible, and if she is worried, perhaps she would like to explain to her constituents why she and her party voted against a deal that would have kept us inside a customs union and a single market. I voted for it; she and her party rejected it.

Ben Lake: I know that the Minister is a strong supporter of devolution and he will acknowledge that the UK Government’s conduct of reserved matters such as trade will have significant implications for devolved competences such as agriculture. With that in mind, what concrete steps are the Government taking to develop the capacity of the Joint Ministerial Committee so that it fosters greater trust and transparency among the four nations?

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman is being quite kind to me, because I was on a slightly different side of the argument in 1999, but I have reformed. I am  a changed man. I recognise that the people of Wales voted twice for devolution in referendums and I believe that when the people of Wales vote for something in a referendum, that choice needs to be respected. I respect and will support devolution and I welcome his suggestion of closer co-operation between the UK and Welsh Governments over important issues such as agriculture.

Local Sports Teams: Covid-19 Support

Rob Roberts: What discussions he has had with the sporting community in Wales on financial support for local teams during the covid-19 outbreak.

Simon Hart: I have had constructive discussions with representative bodies, including Welsh Rugby Union and the Football Association of Wales. These discussions will prove instrumental in allowing teams to get back on the pitch.

Rob Roberts: On a recent trip to Flint Town United in my constituency, who were successfully promoted to the Welsh premier league last year, the chairman was telling me that they need only 15% to 20% of their ground capacity to be allowed in to watch matches in order to cover costs and keep their heads above water. They have done a lot to enable a small number of supporters to return in a covid-secure way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that getting supporters back into grounds in a safe and secure way is the best way to make sure that we do not lose clubs in Wales, which provide vital recreation services for all ages and act as a focal point for the local community?

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I absolutely agree with him. This is also a good moment to congratulate, I think, Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney on their recent purchase of Wrexham football club. What an exciting future they have, no doubt. My hon. Friend’s point is a good one. Of course we want to see a successful vaccination programme and a successful testing programme—that will help in his ambitions—but some funding from the National Lottery and from the Welsh Government will also ease the way to returns to stadiums, and complete capacity stadiums, of the sort that he wishes.

Tonia Antoniazzi: On 10 November, the difficult decision was taken to cancel the remaining games of the women’s rugby Six Nations 2020, due to the impact of coronavirus. While we live in unprecedented times, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that international women’s sport will be given the same priority as men’s, and what message does he think the decision gives to women’s and girls’ sport in Wales?

Simon Hart: The hon. Lady is probably the only person in the Chamber who has represented a sport at national and international level, so I take her question very seriously in that regard. Of course, there should be no disparity between the sports that she refers to. I am absolutely with her and link arms with her in our determination to make sure that that is the case and that we get back to sport of all different sorts as soon as possible, as safely as possible. We will work with her and others to make sure that that is the case.

James Davies: Although football matches are being played again, it is behind closed doors and with no associated matchday income. Will my right hon. Friend encourage Sport Wales and the Football Association of Wales to work together to ensure that clubs such as Rhyl in my constituency receive the support that they need at this really difficult time?

Simon Hart: It would be remiss of me not to give a substantial name-check to Rhyl, having given one to Wrexham—that would seem unfair. I agree with my hon. Friend’s position and the basis of his question. National league funding in England has come up with significant funds, which should be replicated in Wales. We will certainly do anything we can to get money channelled into the sport to see it through this difficult time.

Manufacturing Industry Support

Margaret Greenwood: What steps the Government are taking to support the manufacturing industry in Wales.

Simon Hart: On top of the £5 billion guarantee given to the Welsh Government, we have provided an additional £1.96 billion in direct support to businesses in Wales and protected over 400,000 Welsh jobs. We have also extended the £1 million annual investment allowance to stimulate investment in UK manufacturing.

Margaret Greenwood: Several of my constituents work at the Airbus plant in Broughton in north Wales. In July, it was announced that more than 1,400 jobs would be cut there and earlier this month we heard that there could be more than 400 compulsory redundancies. This is a time of immense uncertainty for the aerospace sector, so what action is the Secretary of State taking to work with the Welsh Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that my constituents’ jobs are secure?

Simon Hart: The hon. Lady appropriately points out the cross-border implication of the effect of coronavirus on Airbus, and I am very aware of that. That is why we are working together with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Welsh Government, other stakeholders and, in particular, with Airbus, which has been incredibly co-operative, forward-looking and—I would like to think—grateful for the support already given by the Chancellor to it in particular and to the industry. The plan is to ensure that there is a future for Airbus at Broughton not only for the next few months but for the next few years. All the planning is about having a sustainable business over a long period of time in addition to seeing people through this immediate period with the most limited amount of hardship that we can achieve.

Covid-19: UK-wide Approach at Christmas

Andrew Rosindell: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on a UK-wide approach to tackling the covid-19 outbreak during the Christmas 2020 period.

Simon Hart: The UK Government have been working closely with the Welsh Government and indeed all three devolved Administrations to tackle covid-19. We have had numerous meetings—in fact, we stopped counting at 200, because it seemed they were becoming so numerous as to be impossible to record. The co-operation has therefore been substantial.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State will agree it is essential that any new coronavirus vaccine is both safe and effective and rolled out as quickly as possible in Wales and across the UK so that we can put an end to these disastrous lockdown policies and get back to normal. Therefore, what discussions will he have with Welsh Ministers on co-ordinating national vaccine supply chains and the UK-wide vaccination roll-out strategy?

Simon Hart: As my hon. Friend knows, an equitable spread of vaccination across the UK is absolutely essential. That is why we are having regular, daily meetings at official and ministerial level with the Welsh Government and others to ensure that that is achieved. In addition, the testing regime announced today for the county of Merthyr Tydfil, which involves, I think, 165 military personnel provided by the UK Government, is in indication of how we are determined to act collaboratively in dealing with this disease.

Steel Industry

Stephen Kinnock: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the long-term future of the steel industry in Wales.

David Davies: I know how committed the hon. Gentleman is to steelmaking from our time on the Welsh Affairs Committee. I reassure him that the UK Government are similarly committed to a long-term sustainable future for steelmaking in Wales. We have already met Tata and the Welsh Government, and BEIS will continue to work with the company as it shapes its business strategy in the future.

Stephen Kinnock: The Minister will be concerned by the recent news that Tata Steel is selling its Dutch operations to a Swedish company. The steel industry is helping so much in the current crisis, and it is the basis of our entire manufacturing sector, so can the Minister please give us a bit more detail about what discussions are taking place with the Government and with Tata Steel, and when we can hear some positive good news, because we need our steel industry?

David Davies: I agree with the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question. I cannot go into great detail about what discussions are taking place, but I can reassure him that discussions have taken place with Tata and with BEIS, and the UK Government stand ready to work with all to ensure that we have that steelmaking future in Wales. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt at all, he only needs to look at the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did to ensure that Celsa received a £30 million loan—a loan that has saved 800 jobs in Wales and demonstrates firmly our commitment to the Welsh steelmaking industry.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Anna McMorrin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 November.

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I know that you have been updated by my officials on Privy Council terms on the leak investigation that you also referred to in the House on 2 November. As you know, Mr Speaker, I take this matter extremely seriously and I commit to returning to update the House in due course.
This morning, I had virtual meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my virtual duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Anna McMorrin: This pandemic has shown how interconnected we are and how vulnerable we are to global challenges. When we are still grappling with covid, the climate emergency and growing hunger, why are this Government reported to be breaking their own manifesto commitment and cutting the aid budget, which saves lives and builds resilience? Will the Prime Minister stop this retreat from the global stage and take this opportunity to rule that out, here and now?

Boris Johnson: I can tell the hon. Lady that everybody in this country can be immensely proud of the massive commitments that this country has made, and will continue to make, to tackling poverty and deprivation around the world. I think they can be even prouder of the commitment that we are now making, leading the world to tackle the threat of climate change. The investment we are making, whether through official development assistance or other means, in tackling that problem is second to none across the world. It is the UK that is leading the world in tackling one of the greatest problems that this planet faces.

Andrew Rosindell: The Prime Minister will know that my constituents in Romford have to put up with a dangerous junction and flyover at Gallows Corner, which was meant to be only a temporary structure but has been there for 50 years. The Prime Minister has been there with me when he was Mayor of London. So as part of this Government’s plans to build back better, will he commit today to stepping in where Sadiq Khan has failed—bankrupting Transport for London to the tune of £10 billion—and guarantee the necessary funding to replace and reshape the junction, especially as it will form a major route to and from the new lower Thames crossing?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is the current Labour Mayor of London who blew TfL’s finances, which were left in remarkably good condition by the previous Mayor of London, even before the pandemic struck. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department for Transport will be working with TfL to see what we can do to resolve the problem at Gallows Corner that he mentions, and we will update him in due course.

Keir Starmer: May I start by sending my best wishes to the Prime Minister and all those across the country who are doing the right thing by following the rules and self-isolating?
Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. Until now, whatever our disagreements, there has been a very broad consensus about devolution, so why did the Prime Minister tell his MPs this week that Scottish devolution is, in his words, “a disaster”?

Boris Johnson: I think what has unquestionably been a disaster is the way in which the Scottish nationalist party has taken and used devolution as a means not to improve the lives of its constituents, not to address their health concerns or to improve education in Scotland, but—I know this point of view is shared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—constantly to campaign for the break-up of our country and to turn devolution, otherwise a sound policy from which I myself personally benefited when I was running London, into a mission to break up the UK. That, in my view, would be a disaster. If he does not think that would be a disaster, perhaps he could say so now.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say that it is the Scottish National party, not the nationalist party; otherwise, the phones will be ringing long and hard.

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I am so sorry. They are national but not nationalist; I see. Right.

Lindsay Hoyle: We can play pedantics another time.

Keir Starmer: The single biggest threat to the future of the United Kingdom is the Prime Minister, every time he opens his mouth almost. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take back control, nobody thought he meant from the Scottish people, but his quote is very clear. He said
“devolution has been a disaster north of the border”.
This is not an isolated incident. Whether it is the internal market Bill or the way the Prime Minister has sidelined the devolved Parliaments over the covid response, he is seriously undermining the fabric of the United Kingdom. Instead of talking down devolution, does he agree that we need far greater devolution of powers and resources across the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: Tony Blair himself, the former Labour leader, has conceded that he did not foresee the rise of a separatist party in Scotland and that he did not foresee the collapse of Scottish Labour. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: there can be great advantages in devolution, and I was very proud, when I was running a devolved administration in London, to do things in which I passionately believed, such as improving public transport, fighting crime and improving housing for my constituents, and we had a great deal of success. What disappoints me is that the Scottish National party—by your ruling on its correct name, Mr Speaker —is not engaging in that basic work. Instead, it is campaigning to break up the Union, an objective that I hope the Leader of the Opposition will repudiate. Will he say so now—that he opposes the break-up of the United Kingdom?

Lindsay Hoyle: It is not a ruling; it is a matter of fact.

Keir Starmer: Of course I do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom, but if anything is fuelling that break-up, it is the Prime Minister.
Turning now to the Prime Minister’s handling of the pandemic, the Prime Minister is doing the right thing by self-isolating after being notified by track and trace, but does he think he would have been able to do so if, like so many other people across the country, all he had to rely on for the next 14 days was either statutory sick pay, which is £95 a week—that is £13 a day—or a one- off payment of £500, which works out at £35 a day?

Boris Johnson: It is good finally to hear something from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in praise of NHS Test and Trace. I think it has secured at least one of his objectives, which is to keep me away from answering his questions in person. I believe that the package that we have in place to protect people and support people throughout this crisis has been outstanding and exceptional. The UK has puts its arms, as I have said many times, around the people of this country—a £200 billion package of support; increasing the living wage by record amounts; uplifting universal credit; many, many loans and grants to businesses of all kinds, and £500 of support for people who are self-isolating in addition to all the other benefits and support that we give. I think it is a reasonable package. I know it is tough for people who have to self-isolate, and I am glad that after a long time in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply attacked NHS Test and Trace, he seems now to be coming round and supporting it.

Keir Starmer: I am not going to take lectures on support—the lockdown measures were passed the other week with Labour votes. Thirty-two of the Prime Minister’s own MPs broke a three-line Whip, and I hear that about 50 of them have joined a WhatsApp group to work out how they are going to oppose him next time around. He should be thanking us for our support, not criticising.
As the Prime Minister well knows, so far as the £500 scheme is concerned, only one in eight workers qualify for that scheme. The Prime Minister always does this: he talks about the number of people he is helping but ignores the huge numbers falling through the gap.
Members here may be able to afford to self-isolate, but that is not the case for many people across the country who send us here. It is estimated that only about 11% of people self-isolate when they are asked to do so—11%. That is not because they do not want to; it is because many do not feel that they can afford to do so. For example, if someone is a self-employed plumber, a construction worker or a photographer and they do not qualify for social security benefits, or if they run a small business and cannot work from home, they are likely to see a significant cut to their income if they have to self-isolate. This is affecting many families across the country. Does the Prime Minister recognise that if we want to increase the number of people who isolate, we need to make it easier and affordable for people to do so?

Boris Johnson: Again, I think it is extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now coming out in favour of NHS Test and Trace when he  has continuously attacked it. In fact, the numbers that he gives for the success rate of the NHS self-isolation programme are, according to my information, way too low. We continue to encourage people to do the right thing—it does break the chain of transmission of the disease. As for the self-employed groups that he mentions, we have given £13.5 billion so far in support for self-employed people and have uplifted universal credit in the way that I described.
What we want to do is to get the virus under control, get the R down below 1, which is the purpose of these current measures, encourage people to self-isolate in the way that I am, and thereby stop the disease from spreading so that the firms, professions and businesses that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about can get back to something as close to normality as soon as possible. In the meantime, we are giving them every possible support.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister must understand that there is a huge gap in the system, because if someone cannot afford to isolate, there is little point in their being tested or traced.
While the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will not pay people enough to isolate properly, we learned this week that they can find £21 million of taxpayers’ money to pay a go-between to deliver lucrative contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care—£21 million. I remind the Prime Minister that a few weeks ago he could not find that amount of money for free school meals for kids over half-term. Does the Prime Minister think that £21 million to a middleman was an acceptable use of taxpayers’ money?

Boris Johnson: When this crisis began, we were urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remove the blockages in our procurement process to get personal protective equipment. As he will remember, we faced a very difficult situation where around the world there were not adequate supplies of PPE. Nobody had enough PPE. We shifted heaven and earth to get 32 billion items of PPE into this country. I am very proud of what has been achieved: 70% of PPE is now made, or capable of being made, in this country, when it was only 1% at the beginning of the pandemic. It is entirely typical of Captain Hindsight that he now attacks our efforts to procure PPE. He said then that we were not going fast enough but now says we went too fast. He should make his mind up.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister talks about hindsight; I say catch up. I called for a circuit breaker; the Prime Minister stood there at the Dispatch Box and said it would be a disaster and he was not going to do it. Then he caught up and did exactly that just a few weeks later. We now have a longer, harder lockdown as a result of his delay, so I will not take that from him.
Last week, the Prime Minister could not explain how his Government ended up paying £150 million on contracts that did not deliver a single piece of usable PPE; this week, he is effectively defending the paying of £21 million on a contract with no oversight. This morning, the independent National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s approach was, in its words, “diminished public transparency”. It reported that more than half of all contracts relating to the pandemic, which, Mr Speaker,   totalled £10.5 billion, were handed out without competitive tender and that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to be awarded contracts.
We are eight months into this crisis and the Government are still making the same mistakes. Can the Prime Minister give a cast-iron assurance that from now on all Government contracts will be subject to proper process with full transparency and accountability?

Boris Johnson: All Government contracts are of course going to be published in the due way and they are already being published. Again, I must say that it is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman now attacks the Government for securing personal protective equipment in huge quantities. I want to thank again all the people who were involved in that effort: Lord Deighton and literally thousands of others who built up a mountain of PPE against any further crisis.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about transparency and moving too fast to secure contracts. He should know that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), wrote to the Government, attacking us for failing to approach various companies, including a football agent who was apparently offering to supply ventilators and a historical clothing manufacturing company that offered to make 175 gowns per week and whose current range includes 16th century silk bodices. Again, at the time, he bashed the Government for not moving fast enough. It is absolutely absurd that Captain Hindsight is now once again trying to score political points by attacking us for moving too fast. I am proud of what we did to secure huge quantities of PPE during a pandemic. Any Government would do the same.

Karl McCartney: I feel like a positive rose between two negative thorns today. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of recent successes that Lincoln City Football Club, the pride of my constituency, have enjoyed. Unfortunately, covid-19 has hit football hard, especially those clubs dependent on ticket sales. Will he urge his Cabinet colleagues to review grant funding for football clubs and perhaps outline how we can return fans to matches at all levels of the game, as I have requested in previous correspondence? As it has been a while since the Prime Minister visited Lincoln, would he care to join me at an Imps match when we can return in person as fans of the beautiful game?

Boris Johnson: I can tell my hon. Friend that we do not want any football team to go out of business as a result of this pandemic and that we are doing everything we can. I understand the frustration of fans, and we want to get crowds back into the ground as soon as possible. As for his invitation to come and watch the Imps, I will do whatever I can to oblige as soon as possible. I will bear his invitation in mind.

Ian Blackford: May I wish the Prime Minister and all those who are self-isolating well? Over the past 20 years, Westminster has imposed an extreme Brexit, an illegal war in Iraq, £9,000 tuition fees, the Windrush scandal, the rape clause and the bedroom tax, and a decade of Tory austerity cuts which have pushed millions into poverty. At the same time, the  Scottish Parliament has delivered free prescriptions, free tuition fees, free personal care, free bus travel, the baby box, the Scottish child payment, and world-leading climate action, all of which make Scotland a fairer and more equal place in which to live. Does the Prime Minister understand why the people in Scotland think it is he and his Parliament that are the real disaster?

Boris Johnson: I respectfully refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. I do think that his policies of wanting to break up the Union are a disaster and I wish that he and his party would focus on the real priorities of the people of Scotland—on education, on health, on tackling crime, on housing, and on the issues that matter to all our people. That is what a devolved Government should do. I was very proud to run a devolved administration and that is what we focused on. We did not endlessly go on about constitutional change and the break-up of the UK.

Ian Blackford: My goodness, I am not sure if the Prime Minister was listening, because I just charted some of the achievements of the Scottish Government delivering on behalf of the people of Scotland. We have seen no apology and no regrets from this Prime Minister. His attack on devolution was not just a slip of the tongue; it was a slip of the Tory mask. The chasm between Westminster and the Scottish people has never been bigger. We know that these were not just flippant remarks, when Scotland faces the biggest threat to devolution with the Tory power grab Bill.
The fact is that Scotland has been completely ignored by Westminster. We now face an extreme Brexit, a power grab and another round of Tory cuts, all being imposed against our will by a Tory Government that we did not vote for. Is it not the case that the real disaster facing the people of Scotland is another 20 years of Westminster Government? Is it not clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland’s interests, our Parliament and our place in Europe is for Scotland to become an independent country?

Boris Johnson: I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman; he is totally wrong. What the UK does as a whole is far bigger, better and more important than what we can do as individual nations and regions. Let us look at the way in which the UK has pulled together during the pandemic: the way in which the armed services have worked to get testing throughout the whole UK; the way in which the furlough scheme has been deployed across the UK; and the billions and billions of pounds that have been found to help people across the whole UK, and businesses in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The UK has shown its value and will continue to show its value.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about wanting to take Scotland back into the European Union. That seemed to be what he was saying just now. What he and the people of Scotland should understand is that that is a massive surrender of power by the people of Scotland straight back to Brussels, just as this country and the people of Scotland have taken it back again. That is power not just over many aspects of their lives and regulations, but, of course, to control Scottish fisheries as well. All that would be lost under his programme, and I do not believe that it will commend itself to the  Scottish people. That programme was decisively rejected in 2014. I believe that it is something that they would almost certainly reject again, but, as he said before—

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Sir Graham Brady.

Graham Brady: Tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost in aviation, and hundreds of thousands more hang in the balance. Will my right hon. Friend throw the industry a lifeline by ensuring that the Government taskforce reports in time for a testing regime to replace the current quarantine arrangements as we come out of this lockdown on 3 December?

Boris Johnson: We are certainly working very fast to see whether we can replace the current quarantine arrangements for every category of self-isolation. Whether it will come fast enough for me, I do not know, but I will keep my hon. Friend informed of developments. We certainly want to help the airline industry.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The people of Northern Ireland will today see again the benefits of the Union, with £165 million invested in rural broadband across Northern Ireland—the result of our agreement with the Government during the last Parliament. Following on from the current population testing initiative in Liverpool, does the Prime Minister agree that Northern Ireland’s 1.8 million population, which is spread across 11 local government districts, would prove ideal for the next phase of the Government’s ongoing programme of work on large-scale covid testing?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent proposal. He is right that mass testing of that kind is a very powerful weapon in the fight against covid. We will certainly be talking to the Northern Ireland Executive about how to proceed.

Gareth Bacon: I have been contacted by many constituents who are owners of leasehold flats in buildings under 18 metres in height that are covered in cladding, and the freeholder has not replaced that cladding or produced an EWS1 form. Some of these residents are desperate to move but cannot because their flats are effectively valueless without the form. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what progress is being made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Fire Chiefs Council to develop the urgently needed risk prioritisation matrix, so that my constituents can move on with their lives?

Boris Johnson: I have deep sympathies with people who face this problem. It is not right or fair because if your building is under 18 metres you do not need one of these EWS1 forms, and you would hope that lenders would understand that. But we are working as fast as we can to make sure that all the buildings in question are identified and that we remove cladding wherever it is necessary and give assurance and security wherever that is necessary too.

Kate Osborne: Government plans to scrap the union learning fund mean that thousands of workers—about 200,000 a year, many of  them low-paid—will miss out on training opportunities. With unemployment levels rising, will the Prime Minister today act on his commitment to offer a lifetime skills guarantee to help people to train and retrain at any stage in their lives, and reverse this decision to ensure that working people can access education, training and skills for the future?

Boris Johnson: That is exactly what we announced only a few weeks ago with the lifetime skills guarantee. The purpose of the lifetime skills guarantee is this: if you are over 23, you are not currently eligible for support from the Government in getting a new skill or a new qualification, but we will now pay you for that skill—we will support you. Particularly in the context of this pandemic, we want to help to train and retrain people throughout their lives so that they can adjust to our changing economy. The hon. Lady makes a very good point.

Gareth Davies: In order to truly level up constituencies like mine in Lincolnshire, we will need to mobilise billions of private capital to help us to pay for new infrastructure investment. Will the Prime Minister consider launching a new financial institution such as a national development bank to help to achieve this?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for Grantham and Stamford and for Lincolnshire. I can tell him that we are putting another £125 million into Greater Lincolnshire through the growth deals and another £25 million through the Getting Building fund. We will be bringing forward further measures—I take his point on board very sincerely—to boost investment in UK infrastructure in due course.

James Murray: In March, the Government’s chief scientific officer said that keeping covid deaths below 20,000 would be a good outcome but still an enormous number of deaths. We have now passed 50,000 deaths and suffered the deepest recession of any G7 country, with GDP dropping by 10% in the past year. Why does the Prime Minister think the UK has had the deepest recession in the G7 and the highest number of covid deaths in Europe?

Boris Johnson: This is a global pandemic and one in which the UK has, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, been badly affected, and we mourn every life that has been lost. Of course we are supporting businesses with all the firepower of the UK economy. But I have absolutely no doubt that we will get through this strongly by next spring, as the scientific advisers and the medical officers have said. We have the tools to do it and we have the scientific weaponry to do it. That is why we are engaged in the current restrictions to get the R down to suppress the virus now and to try to get the economy moving in a way that I am sure he would like.

Mark Pawsey: Most of our fabulous independent retailers in Rugby are currently closed due to covid restrictions. While they appreciate the very welcome financial support provided by the Government, they are concerned that supermarkets and multiple retailers continue to sell the same products as  them, such as homeware and clothing, enabling them to generate substantial profits while at the same time having had a holiday on the payment of business rates. Does the Prime Minister agree that there should be fairness between retailers, and that with the Government spending £200 billion to support businesses and people in these very tough times, it would be a welcome gesture from multiples who continue to trade to volunteer to pay those retailers’ businesses rates?

Boris Johnson: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and the feeling of unfairness that he describes. What we are trying to do with the business rates holiday and all the other measures we have announced is to help all retailers. The best thing we can do is to get through this tough period as well as we possibly can and allow all retailers to reopen and give them our support with our custom. That is what we are aiming for.

Margaret Ferrier: My constituent applied for the EU settlement scheme in September 2019 for her and her son. Fifteen months on, she is still waiting for a decision on her application. With the end of the transition period just a few short weeks away, will the Prime Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that my constituent’s application and all other outstanding applications to the scheme will be concluded before 31 December 2020?

Boris Johnson: I understand that the case is now under urgent review and a decision will be made shortly.

Damian Collins: It is fantastic that we will very soon have the covid vaccine, but extremely concerning that in a recent survey, one in five people say they will not take it. Does the Prime Minister agree that social media companies should be doing more to remove anti-vaccine disinformation and conspiracy theories? Will he consider including requirements to do that within the scope of the Government’s forthcoming online harms Bill?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I am very pleased that Facebook, Twitter and Google have committed that no company should profit from or promote vaccine disinformation and that companies should respond to that kind of content very quickly. We are going to publish our response shortly to the online harms White Paper consultation and will be setting out our plans for legislation.

Chi Onwurah: Child poverty is evil—I know; I grew up with it. The North East Child Poverty Commission reports that our region suffered the country’s biggest increase in child poverty between 2015 and 2019, when half of children in Newcastle upon Tyne Central were growing up poor, and that was before covid. Yet 15,000 of the poorest households in my constituency stand to lose £1,000 a year because of planned cuts to universal credit in April. Instead of damaging last-minute U-turns, will the Prime Minister now commit to maintaining universal credit at least at the current rate?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is right in what she says about the impact of child poverty, and that is why this Government have worked so hard to combat child poverty. That is why we did indeed uprate universal  credit, which is right for the exceptional circumstances we are in. That was £1,000 a household, and we will continue to support people throughout the country, but the most important thing we can do is to ensure that we get people into work and support families to get the jobs they need. It is the record of this country in creating jobs, and new jobs in particular, that has meant that 400,000 children have been lifted out of poverty in the past 10 years. That is progress. It is not enough, but it is progress.

Christopher Chope: More than 1 million fellow citizens have recovered after testing positive for covid-19. On 2 November, The BMJ reported that all those people will have protection from their T cells, which will ensure that they cannot be reinfected for at least six months. In light of that, will my right hon. Friend follow the example of Sweden and exempt from all the covid regulations those who have tested positive within the past six months and thereby show that he is following the science and also common sense?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his very well meant suggestion. It is very kind, but there is evidence both ways on that. What everybody would expect is that everybody who gets pinged and gets contacted by NHS Test and Trace should follow the rules.

Mohammad Yasin: Six out of 10 people who have died from covid-19 are disabled. Yet, during this pandemic, disabled people have seen their care cut back, have struggled to isolate without sufficient support, and have been excluded from the Government’s shambolic communications. As we start Disability History Month, will the Prime Minister tell the House why disabled people have been so let down by his Government?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the question and for his campaigning on behalf of the disabled but I must reject what he says. We have done everything we can to reach out to disabled and vulnerable groups of all kinds, to give them all the advice that we think is necessary and all the support that we possibly can throughout the pandemic. I know that this has been very tough for people, and I thank them for the way that they have pulled together and followed the guidance. It has been particularly tough, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, for disabled people. That is why we have given huge quantities in support, as I said before, to the NHS and to vulnerable groups of all kinds. The way forward now is to keep the virus under control, to come out of the current measures on 2 December, to allow our economy to start moving again, and to use testing and the prospect of a vaccination next year, ready to get the disease under control.

Douglas Ross: The Prime Minister is aware of the success we have seen across Scotland through city region and growth deals. Moray is set to benefit from both the Scottish and the UK Governments’ working together on our local deal. However, will my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit to Moray could be even greater if the UK Government’s contribution was spread over a shorter period than the current 15 years—say, 10 or less? Will he agree that that would be very worthwhile, beneficial and welcomed by everyone involved in the Moray growth deal?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for this campaign. He has raised the idea with me before. What I can say is that while we will certainly look at what he says, I am very glad that we have signed the heads of terms on the Moray growth deal, delivering over £30 million of investment. I thank him for the lobbying that he has been doing.

Ian Byrne: Professor Ian Sinha from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, West Derby, recently stated that the environment a child develops in, even before being born, can affect its DNA detrimentally by 10%. This Government have been responsible for creating an environment that is pushing millions of families into food poverty, which will be shaping this terrifying outcome. To address this, will the Prime Minister—I ask him for the second time—work with me and other groups to put the right to food into law?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of food poverty and of poverty generally. That is why, in answer to the previous question from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), I made the point that we have actually been successful, as we have been championing work and employment, in getting large numbers of families out of poverty. That is what we are going to do. As he knows, we are putting up £170 million to support local councils throughout the winter, so that no child goes hungry this Christmas or over the winter season through any inattention of this Government. I am grateful to him for raising the issue with me.

John Lamont: As the Prime Minister will know, the Scottish cashmere and whisky industries are being hammered by the tariffs imposed by the United States as a result of the trade dispute with the European Union. Those tariffs are now doing serious harm to such iconic Scottish products, costing us jobs in the Scottish borders. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to find a resolution to the dispute?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that issue. It continues to be a cause of grave concern, and I raise it repeatedly with our American friends. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to reach a negotiated solution as fast as we possibly can.

Bambos Charalambous: A recent study of 18 million people in  shows that black, Asian and minority ethnic people are twice as likely as white people to catch coronavirus and more likely to go into intensive care. Lead researchers have suggested that structural inequalities, not genetics, are the key differential, so how will the Prime Minister redress structural inequalities as the vaccine is rolled out?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and we are thinking about this issue in government right now. As he knows, in response to the early data that we saw about the impact on black and minority ethnic groups, we brought forward enhanced testing procedures for particularly vulnerable groups—those who are exposed to a heavy viral load, perhaps in the course of their work. There are other factors at play in  the prevalence of the disease among black and minority ethnic groups. I am sure that the point he makes will be among the considerations that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation takes into account in the course of deciding how to roll out the vaccine and where it should go first. He makes an important point.

Lindsay Hoyle: I would like to put a big thank you on record to the broadcasting team for making today happen.

Boris Johnson: Hear, hear.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals

Louise Haigh: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the preparations for the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Robin Walker: My Secretary of State is on the way to Northern Ireland this afternoon, and has asked me to respond to this question on his behalf. We continue our work to implement the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate way that minimises the disruption to people’s day-to-day lives and preserves the gains of the 22 years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. We are helping traders to prepare for the end of the transition period. We published business guidance in August, and are updating it all the time as arrangements are finalised. We have established the trader support scheme, backed by £200 million of Government funding. More than 7,000 businesses have signed up, and hundreds more are joining them every day. We are considering further support measures for agrifood traders, with further details to be announced shortly.
We are getting on with the work that we need to do so that our systems and facilities are ready. We are putting in place the IT systems that are needed to process goods movements, supported by £155 million, which we announced in August. We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive on the delivery of expanded points of entry for agrifood, with the contract now awarded and work under way on arrangements on day one and thereafter.
We are getting on with putting the legislative framework in place for manufactured goods and food safety among many other issues, and our programme is well on track to be delivered in full by the end of the year. We are delivering on our unequivocal commitment to unfettered access. We have provided for robust protections in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill for mutual recognition and a prohibition on new checks and controls. We will re-table those clauses when the Bill returns to the House.
We laid a draft statutory instrument in Parliament, which was approved on 10 November by this House, and is scheduled for debate in the other place on 30 November. That will ensure that on 1 January Northern Ireland businesses can continue to move their goods as they do now. We are working with the Executive to introduce a longer-lasting second phase of that system, to focus its benefits on Northern Ireland businesses, to be introduced in the course of 2021.
We are working intensively and in good faith through the Joint Committee to pursue the solutions that we need to support our approach. We have already agreed a phased approach for medicines rules in Northern Ireland, ensuring that those critical goods can continue to flow. We have agreed an approach to scoping the application of the electricity directive in respect of Northern Ireland’s single electricity market that will ensure that the single electricity market continues to deliver for Northern Ireland.
We are working to ensure that UK internal freight is not subject to tariffs, and to remove export declarations from Northern Ireland to GB trade. We continue to pursue specific solutions for supermarket trade, noting the huge social and economic importance of avoiding disruption. That essential work will continue at pace in the coming days but, of course, I cannot give a running commentary on discussions with the European Union.

Louise Haigh: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. There are 43 days until the end of the transition period, and it is hard to express the frustration, anxiety and fears that have been relayed to me and to the Minister by countless businesses and communities in Northern Ireland, as the clock has started to tick. Northern Ireland needed every second of this transition year to get ready for the biggest changes to its trading relationship that it has ever known, but vital time has been squandered, first with the denial that any checks would take place at all and then with the extraordinary spectacle of the Government threatening to tear up their own oven-ready deal and breach international treaties that they had signed into law—an approach that the Minister has just confirmed they are sticking to when the Bill returns to the House from the other place.
The result of that recklessness and incompetence is that thousands of businesses still do not know the bare basics of how they will trade with Great Britain in just six weeks’ time. As the president of the Ulster Farmers Union said this morning, we are in a transition, but we do not know what we are transitioning to. The whole purpose of the protocol was to protect the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, and the relationship east-west is as important as the relationship north-south. The Government’s reckless approach to negotiations and their incompetent failure to prepare risk significant disruption, a maximalist interpretation of the protocol and completely unnecessary checks. Ministers should take their heads out of the sand and give businesses the answers for which they have been begging throughout this transition year.
First, on the customs declaration service, which will handle over 1 million declarations in January alone, experts say that they need 18 months to get traders ready for the new system, so why has the industry not had the final version? Given that those experts now say that it is simply too late for the system to work, what are the contingency plans to avoid widespread disruption on 1 January? Will there be flexibility to allow businesses to adapt to new systems? What is plan B?
On the trader support service, which the Minister mentioned and which is supposed to guide businesses through the complex new customs arrangements, can he confirm that the Government are not seriously considering leaving it until 21 December for that system to go live? Why have businesses had no information whatsoever on the tariff rebate system, as confirmed by the chief executive of Manufacturing NI this morning? Where is the border operator model promised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster over summer? Without it, traders are completely in the dark on what data they will need to provide in order to move goods.
Finally, on food imports, which the Minister referenced, a compromise is now desperately needed—and the EU has a huge responsibility of its own to deliver this—in  order to reduce checks that some supermarkets and food producers say could lead them to pull out of Northern Ireland altogether. It is absurd that food destined for Northern Ireland supermarkets should be considered a risk to the EU single market, so is either a temporary waiver requirement or a permanent trusted trader scheme about to be confirmed? Again, why have the Government refused to engage directly with Northern Ireland retailers?
Northern Ireland desperately—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say that when I grant an urgent question, it is for two minutes, but we are now over three minutes? I did give the hon. Lady some time and I think the Minister will have picked it up.

Robin Walker: Delivering on the protocol is a crucial part of operations for the end of the transition period. Providing certainty is urgent and we will continue to prioritise this. As we implement the protocol, it is important to keep in mind that it was designed as a way of implementing the needs of our exit from the EU in a way that works for Northern Ireland and, in particular, as the hon. Lady says, maintaining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—the gains of the peace process and the delicate balance across communities that explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence.
For the protocol to work, it must respect the needs of all Northern Ireland’s people, respect the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the customs territory of the UK, and be implemented in a way that protects Northern Ireland’s economy. Our approach does that, focusing on implementing the protocol in a way that is flexible and proportionate, and protecting the interests of both the whole of the United Kingdom and the EU. As I have already referred to, the Government have already taken practical steps to do this, working in partnership with the devolved Administration.
The hon. Lady referred to the delivery of IT systems. I can confirm that the delivery of IT systems necessary for the end of the transition period is on track. The recent National Audit report confirms that since May, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made progress, putting in place the core elements of the IT services required. As a responsible Government, however, we continue to make extensive preparations for a range of fall-back scenarios. We have been working with key delivery partners to support preparations for IT systems delivery, and we will continue to support their preparations for the end of the transition period.
We are reaching agreement with the EU on individual areas of approach—for instance, the phased approach to medicines that I referred to, and agreement on the process for identifying Northern Ireland traders for VAT purposes and enabling them to reclaim VAT through existing IT databases when trading in goods with the EU. However, the hon. Lady is right to reflect that there remain important outstanding issues to be resolved in discussion with the EU. For example, we are seeking, through the Joint Committee, specific solutions to supermarkets and on the classification of which goods are at genuine and substantial risk of entering the EU market. Those are still subject to discussion and need to be agreed with the EU. There are real-world consequences for businesses and consumers if they are not, which we believe would be contrary to the intentions of the  protocol. We have agreed with the EU to intensify the process of engagement, to resolve all outstanding issues. These discussions are ongoing and we continue to act in good faith and in line with the approach we have adopted throughout.
The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses and communities are ready for the end of the transition period, and our intensive programme of engagement with industry has continued at pace. The business engagement forum has now met 20 times since May, and this month the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster formed a UK-wide business readiness task- force. The hon. Lady talked about the importance of supermarkets and food producers, and I can confirm to her that one of the most recent meetings was between the Secretary of State and supermarkets in the industry.
We have also made considerable progress in the provision of guidance, publishing over 25 pieces of sectoral guidance in recent weeks for moving goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We will continue to work with businesses in this manner and ensure that they are provided with the guidance and support they need to be ready.

Simon Hoare: It is 43 days until 31 December and covid-hit businesses are exasperated —and I share that exasperation. Every witness the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has heard from says that they wish to obey the rules, whatever they are. When are they going to know definitively what they have to do and how they have to do it, in order to keep themselves in business and on the right side of the law?

Robin Walker: I absolutely recognise the concern that businesses have, which has been reflected to me and to the Secretary of State in our meetings, and their desire to have absolute certainty on this. As my hon. Friend will recognise, some of these things are still subject to ongoing negotiations with the EU; of course, I would much rather that those things had already been resolved, as I know he would. However, we want to ensure that for those things that are within our gift, we provide that certainty, and the UK Government are doing that when it comes to unfettered access. For those things that stand to be resolved, we continue to negotiate in good faith to resolve them so that we can put that information in front of businesses, but what we are doing already is progressively providing guidance where agreements have been reached. We will continue to pursue that.

Alyn Smith: I really am appalled by the lack of seriousness with which the UK Government are taking issues in Northern Ireland. We have warned about it for long enough: even this morning, this House’s Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union heard from Victor Chestnutt, the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, who has no axe to grind politically in this. He said that we are approaching 1 January
“with both arms tied behind our back and a blindfold on.”
The other place heard last week from the Police Service of Northern Ireland that there is a real risk that there are bad men on all sides of the discussion in Northern Ireland ready to take advantage of chaos, and that internationally, we could see organised crime focusing on Northern Ireland because of the lack of preparation  and uncertainty. This just is not ready yet, Minister. Northern Ireland needs an adjustment period: are preparations ready for that? Failing that, what plans are there for a relocation of police officers to Northern Ireland on a massive scale, in order to assist with such procedures as will need to be enforced because of his Government’s failure?

Robin Walker: I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. The protocol will ensure that many of the key issues about which his party has warned over the years are addressed with respect to the end of the transition period, and that there be no disruption at the border, as some have suggested in the past that there could be. We will absolutely deliver on that, and I am looking forward to giving evidence to the Select Committee on the issue of cross-border co-operation. I am convinced that strong co-operation to tackle crime, including organised crime, can continue between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

Desmond Swayne: It will be essential to restore the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to the status quo ante will it not?

Robin Walker: Yes.

Hilary Benn: This morning, the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union took evidence from the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium and Manufacturing NI. Their message was clear: Northern Ireland businesses and the supply chain will not be ready for 1 January, because they do not know what to plan for, they do not know what goods will be identified as being at risk, and they are not confident that customs facilities, checks and software will be ready in time. As the Minister knows, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs itself says that it will not be possible to complete the necessary work by 1 January. Given the length of time the Government have had to prepare for the bits they do control, how on earth has it come to this?

Robin Walker: I recognise the meticulous and detailed work that the right hon. Gentleman does on his Select Committee, and the importance of all those stakeholders he has mentioned. We do want to provide the certainty and the structure, and I have already given an update in my statement on IT systems and some of the support we are providing through the trader support service. However, he will recognise that some of these issues are not yet resolved due to ongoing negotiations with the EU, and I am sure he would join me and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in urging them to work with us to resolve those in a pragmatic manner.

James Sunderland: The very point of the protocol is to uphold the Good Friday agreement, and also to protect consumers in Northern Ireland. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister recently made this clear when they wrote to the European Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the EU is as serious as we are about peace, prosperity and the people of Northern Ireland, it must take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to all negotiations?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is spot on. It is also important that both parties to the protocol bear in mind the wording in that protocol about protecting the everyday life of people in Northern Ireland. That is absolutely crucial to this, and it is something that we should both be working to deliver.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Minister will be aware that the protocol enables the UK Government to act unilaterally where that is necessary to protect the economy of Northern Ireland. In relation to the single market Bill and the Finance Bill, will he assure the House that he will bring forward those proposals and measures that are necessary to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market? Does he recognise that there is cross-party and cross-community support for a period of time for the implementation of those measures, to allow our businesses, supermarkets, and others to prepare properly?

Robin Walker: The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. He mentioned our approach to the return of the UK Internal Market Bill to the Commons and a Finance Bill later this year, and although I do not have specific control of that, I am happy to make those commitments to him and to all parties in Northern Ireland. It is crucial that we resolve these issues, and he has set out one of the most sensible ways to do that.

Theresa Villiers: Does the Minister agree that the European Union’s threat to refuse to list the UK as a fit country to export food to the European Union, and the de facto ban that that would involve on transporting food between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, contravenes its duty of good faith towards the withdrawal agreement and the protocol? Will he press strongly in the Joint Committee for the EU to take the proportionate approach to sanitary and phytosanitary checks that is required of it by its international WTO obligations?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and in fairness, it is right to acknowledge that some of the threat that she talks about has since been withdrawn. We must ensure that the EU meets its commitments—again, I return to the point about protecting people in Northern Ireland from the impact of the protocol on everyday life, and flows of food are incredibly important in that respect.

Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the Minister on a bravura performance today. It is absolutely without parallel, and Sir Humphrey himself would be proud of what we have heard from the Dispatch Box. Essentially, he is telling us that those farmers, business organisations and everybody else who say that they are not ready for this move are wrong and that he is right. If, come January, it turns out that they are right and he is wrong, will he resign?

Robin Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is typically charming in the way he asks his question. We all ought to focus on delivering what the protocol promised in the first place to the people of Northern Ireland and, accepting its unique circumstances, on delivering the flow of goods north, south, east and west, and protecting and respecting its place in the UK internal market. That is what businesses want, and that is what I want.

Laura Farris: Work is continuing at pace to get Northern Irish businesses to sign up to the trader support service, but how confident is the Minister that all qualifying businesses will have signed up by the deadline? Will he consider a temporary concession for any businesses that, come January, say that—for whatever reason—they were unaware of this service, or failed to sign up in time?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion that I will happily take away and consider. Progress so far with 7,000 businesses having signed up is good, but of course we want to see more. She is right to say it is important that all businesses in Northern Ireland, particularly the many small businesses that form the backbone of the economy, are aware of this scheme, and we should continue to encourage them to sign up.

Colum Eastwood: If there is no deal on data sharing with the EU by the end of the transition period, there is a real risk that health services in Ireland will not be able to carry out cross-border contact tracing. Brexit is a total mess of this Government’s making. The pandemic—covid—is a mess and a crisis made worse by this Government’s handling of it. Lives and livelihoods are at real risk because of the ineptitude of this Government. When will people in Northern Ireland have some confidence that contact tracing will be able to continue across the border?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of north-south co-operation, and east-west co-operation, with the Republic of Ireland in dealing with the covid pandemic, and we should continue to support that. The UK Government are clear that we will give data adequacy to the EU, and given that all the legal instruments are in place to meet its requirements, we think there is no reason for there not to be a joint agreement on data adequacy. I hope that will be achieved in the weeks to come.

Peter Gibson: Can my hon. Friend guarantee that in all circumstances, this Government will completely protect the unfettered access of goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain?

Robin Walker: Yes.

Tony Lloyd: Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland’s Agriculture Minister, has made it clear that he does not believe that the new border control posts necessary to control the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be in place by 1 January. The Association of Freight Software Suppliers has made it clear that it does not believe that the customs declaration service will be operable by 1 January. That would be massively disruptive for businesses on both sides of the Irish sea, in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Who will take responsibility if those who fear this is going wrong prove to be right?

Robin Walker: I have worked closely with Minister Poots, and I recognise that he comes at this with a very different attitude to the protocol—it is not something that he necessarily wanted in the first place—but he and his Department are working pragmatically to deliver on this. We will continue to work with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure  that the requirements are met and that, where necessary, infrastructure is upgraded. The UK Government have offered to cover the cost of some of that, because we recognise that this relates to an international agreement for which we are responsible. With regard to customs systems, it is for the Treasury to respond on the detail, but I reiterate what I said in my statement: IT systems are on track.

Nigel Mills: Can the Minister confirm that the Irish tax authorities and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are working together to put in place common-sense arrangements that can help to address the unique issues arising from Northern Ireland’s status in both the UK and the EU customs areas? Some sensible interpretations and information sharing could avoid some of the more extreme proposals being put forward by one side or another in this debate.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an interesting proposal. In the absence of an agreement and a deal between the UK and the EU, clearly we would need to explore everything that could be done at a bilateral level. I am not aware of those discussions as of now, but I am happy to discuss that with Treasury colleagues and write back to him if that is the case.

Stephen Farry: I am concerned that the conclusion of the Joint Committee work is being overly conflated with the future relationship negotiations. There is also an emerging issue around the loss of access to the VAT margin scheme for used cars sourced in Great Britain for sale in Northern Ireland, which entails VAT on the full value, rather than just the profit margin. Will the Minister undertake to have urgent discussions with HMRC to find a resolution to that problem?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about not conflating the future relationship with delivery of the protocol. The protocol is agreed between the parties, and we need to deliver on it in all circumstances. I think that many of us in this House hope that an agreement on the future relationship will make that more straightforward. On his point about VAT, I am happy to have those discussions with HMRC and look into that issue in more detail.

Scott Benton: Northern Ireland will always be as much a part of our United Kingdom as my constituency, so the notion of businesses in Ulster facing barriers to trade with those in Blackpool and elsewhere is completely unacceptable. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need “flexible and imaginative solutions” around Northern Ireland to ensure that we can maintain unfettered access? Those are not my words, but those of the EU’s negotiating team.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is right about the huge importance of flexible and imaginative solutions to deliver on this. That is something to which the EU is committed and the UK is absolutely committed. He is right, of course, that Northern Ireland is as much a part of this United Kingdom as his constituency.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Under this protocol, the European Union appears to have even more say on trade and services within the United Kingdom  than when we were actually members of the EU. It is dictating that Northern Ireland cannot benefit from VAT margins, as already discussed. It is dictating higher food prices to Northern Ireland, which will increase poverty. Unfettered access will be hindered because of more red tape and the additional costs outlined today. Indeed, in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we heard this morning from the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland about how she is completely out of the loop when it comes to the negotiations on how we manage criminality and justice matters. Will the Minister admit that this protocol is a complete and total disaster and that it should be set aside if it damages good business between Northern Ireland and GB? The Secretary of State previously spoke on this matter. Will he match his busting at words with busting at action?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman will know that he and I do not agree on the protocol, and I gently point out that the protocol very clearly applies to goods but not to services.

Jacob Young: We cannot talk about the Good Friday or Belfast agreement without thinking of my predecessor Dr Mo Mowlam, who was instrumental in achieving the agreement in 1998. Today, preventing a hard border east-west in the Irish sea is just as important as preventing one north-south on the island of Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that the EU must take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to any discussions to ensure continued peace and prosperity for all parts of our United Kingdom?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is right to pay tribute to his constituency predecessor in this respect. The Good Friday agreement has always been a careful balance of the interests of the communities in Northern Ireland and the importance of east-west and north-south co-operation. It is vital in delivering the protocol that all parties should continue to respect that.

Andrew Gwynne: Peter MacSwiney, the chief executive of a customs agency, has said there is a
“totally unacceptable level of risk”
in getting the vital customs declaration service ready for 1 January and that it risks paralysing all of Northern Ireland’s trade movements. Ministers were warned in summer 2019 that industry will need a year to test, trial and implement this new system, so how can it be right, with 43 days left, that the final version has still not been delivered?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, when we talk about customs, the protocol is there, in part, to ensure the absence of customs requirements on goods going between GB and Northern Ireland and on goods coming from Northern Ireland into GB. It is essential that we deliver on that. His question on implementation could perhaps more appropriately be discussed with Treasury Ministers. However, I refer him to the point I made in my statement about the IT systems being on track.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very disappointing that the European Union continues to engage in wrecking tactics, which are in breach of both its duty of good faith and its duty of sincere co-operation?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to those duties. We continue to engage in good faith, and we hope these issues can be resolved in the Joint Committee in a way that shows both parties have done so.

Gavin Newlands: For all the issues that the Government face on the protocol—caused by Brexit, it should be said—and all the concerns raised by Members in the House this afternoon, are they now tempted to agree with the comments made by their own Brexit negotiator, David Frost, who concluded in 2016 that it
“simply isn’t worth jeopardising access to the single market for the sake of global trade”?

Robin Walker: Pulling points out of context from what people said in the past is always a dangerous game. I have great faith in our negotiator, and I am sure that he will deliver the best deal he possibly can.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: The First Ministers wrote jointly to the EU regarding the application of the protocol, saying it was not intended to impose new costs on food for consumers in Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend tell the House when the First Ministers last agreed on a matter relating to Brexit?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Executive have always taken a responsible approach to working together in the interests of Northern Ireland. It says something that there is cross-community agreement on the importance of addressing this. It is therefore vital that both parties work as hard as they can to resolve the issue and make sure that the protocol delivers on what it promised about not impacting everyday life for people in Northern Ireland.

Kevin Brennan: Can I say to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) that it is not up to him whether Northern Ireland remains in the UK in perpetuity? That is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland under the Good Friday agreement.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Future Relationship with the European Union Committee on 8 October that border infrastructure in Northern Ireland would be ready for exit day, but the permanent secretary in charge of the project to deliver that infra- structure in Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has said that the project is unachievable and will not be finished until June by 2021. What is the Minister’s explanation for the difference between those two statements?

Robin Walker: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we continue to work closely with DAERA both at ministerial and official level to deliver the necessary arrangements. He will recognise that we are not talking about new customs infrastructure. We are talking about  an expansion of existing facilities to make sure that we can meet the SPS requirements, and I think that it is something on which we can absolutely deliver.

Bob Stewart: Assuming there was a free trade agreement, I suppose there will still have to be some checks—for example, on quality of goods—within the United Kingdom. Will the Minister reassure me that any official who works doing such minimal checks is actually British?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The UK is responsible for the implementation of the protocol in the United Kingdom, and therefore we want to make sure that any checks and processes are streamlined and do not interfere with unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods coming into GB. Any internal checks are the responsibility of the UK Government and their employees.

Stephen Doughty: I am sorry that the Prime Minister and the Minister still seem to be living in some sort of Trumpian fantasy land about the consequences of the clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I would urge them to listen to the voices on all sides in both Houses and, indeed, President-elect Biden on that issue. It is absolutely crucial that they do that.
Will the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that traders operating between the Welsh ports—Pembroke, Fishguard and Holyhead on Anglesey—and either the Republic of Ireland or with Northern Ireland in internal UK trade that transits the Republic of Ireland in either direction will not face any difficulties with IT systems, checks or processes come the end of the transition period?

Robin Walker: As the hon. Member knows very well, I would love to be able to give him that cast-iron guarantee, but some of it is dependent on negotiations that are ongoing with the European Union. He is talking about trade between the UK and an EU member state. What we will ensure is that we meet our commitment to unfettered access. In that respect, I think his comments on the UKIM Bill are a little naive. We have to ensure that we can deliver on that commitment under all circumstances.

Felicity Buchan: As someone who has links to South Down, can I ask my hon. Friend to assure me that everything is being done to ensure a smooth transition both for businesses and for individuals, and that we are trying to reach agreement with the EU as soon as possible?

Robin Walker: Yes, I can give that assurance. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the importance for real people living in the real world in places such as South Down. We want to ensure that there is delivery on the intentions of the protocol, and that it can be seen through so that people can go about their lives and their business without having been impacted negatively.

Jim Shannon: The agrifood sector in my constituency provides some 3,000 production jobs, so it is very important. Can the Minister of State outline what specific inroads have been made on information  for agrifood producers about the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure that, in six weeks’ time, their perishable valuable goods can continue their journeys in a smooth manner not only to EU countries, but to the UK mainland? Furthermore, what discussions have taken place with DAERA for that very smooth transition?

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman raises a hugely important point. I have met many farmers and agrifood producers in Northern Ireland, and I recognise the crucial importance of that industry. The protocol ensures that movements of Northern Ireland produce into the European Union—into the Republic of Ireland—are protected. We deliver on the movement into the rest of the UK through our unfettered access commitment, and we continue to work very closely with DAERA on all these issues.

Robin Millar: As a sovereign nation, it is essential that we complete our transition out of the EU on 31 December with our sovereignty intact. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we can also do that with our Union intact?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend does really important work with his Union Research Group. I think he is absolutely right that we need to ensure that we deliver on both, and proper implementation of the protocol will ensure that we do so.

Claire Hanna: The Government frequently claim that Brexit will not lead to a lowering of standards on foods, medicines and rights, so presumably the resistance to agreeing a level playing field is just to have the theoretical power to lower standards. We have just been hearing how Northern Ireland is grappling with the protocol, which is, of course, a necessary consequence of Brexit. Is the risk of such deep economic damage and political instability really a price worth paying just so that this Government can have a power that they can boast about, but which they claim they are not going to use?

Robin Walker: I recognise that the hon. Lady has strong views against our leaving the EU which she has been consistent in demonstrating. It is essential that we deliver on a protocol that is there to protect the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, and that is absolutely what we will do.

Christian Wakeford: I recently visited a manufacturer in my constituency called Thumbs Up, which highlighted its concerns about export summary declarations and their impact not only on its business, but on its customers. What work is the Department doing to maintain the frictionless and unfettered movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to mitigate any impact on businesses such as Thumbs Up in Radcliffe?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Where British businesses are selling into Northern Ireland and the intended use of their goods is clearly in the Northern Ireland market, it is, of course, important that we do everything we can to protect them from unnecessary bureaucracy. Discussions on this issue are ongoing with the Joint Committee, and I assure him that we will do whatever is in our power to deliver that  frictionless access for businesses in order to ensure that the crucial trade between Britain and Northern Ireland can continue.

Toby Perkins: There was a time when the Conservative party was proud of the fact that it was the party of business, but those days seem to be long gone: we have a situation where business is telling the Government about the problems that these arrangements will cause. Businesses need certainty and time to put in place measures to make such fundamental changes. We have a Government who seem to be passionate about the fact of Brexit, but ignorant of the facts around it. Will the Minister just come to the Dispatch Box, take seriously the concerns that have been put in front of him by a whole array of business bodies, and try to sort this out?

Robin Walker: We absolutely take seriously the concerns of business. We are engaging with businesses all the time on this and we want to deliver for them. One of the key concerns is the delivery of unfettered access. That is one of the issues on which businesses in Northern Ireland have repeatedly pressed me and my colleagues. The hon. Gentleman’s party is currently failing to support that in its approach to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Mike Wood: Any assistance by the EU on the need for export summary declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK would not only be contrary to the Good Friday agreement and the 1800 Acts of Union, but would fly in the face of the clear commitment in the withdrawal agreement to ensure unfettered access to such movement. Will my hon. Friend ensure that this unfettered access is protected in all circumstances, whether or not we conclude a trade agreement with the European Union?

Robin Walker: Yes.

Catherine West: What assessment has the Minister made of the remarks of Northern Ireland’s chief veterinary officer, who has said that it would be impossible to check all food products after exit day given that construction has not even begun on any of the three new border control posts in Northern Ireland? What contingency plans are being put in place for SPS controls for goods entering Northern Ireland from GB, specifically if there is no waiver or no phased implementation from 1 January?

Robin Walker: It is not my role to make assessments of officials, but let me be clear that we are working with DAERA on delivery of these SPS checks. We are talking not about building totally new infrastructure, but upgrading existing arrangements. As the hon. Member will know, there are already arrangements in place in some respects between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to protect the single epidemiological unit of the island of Ireland. Work is continuing, and we will continue to work hand in hand with DAERA and its officials to deliver it.

Marco Longhi: Does my hon. Friend agree that the imposition of restrictions on the movements of goods within our sovereign Union by a third party is not compatible with the definition of sovereignty?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is crucial that the UK should be able to determine how goods move within its own customs area and internal market. That is why we have taken the steps that we have in respect of the UK internal market to make sure that we have a fall-back and an absolute guarantee that we can deliver unfettered access. I am hopeful that we will be able to reach agreement with the EU on the outstanding issues, and we continue to negotiate in good faith in order to do so and to make sure that unfettered access, as was envisaged in the protocol, is delivered.

Stephen Flynn: Notwithstanding the fact that the abilities of this Government are clearly quite limited, will the Minister outline specifically how he expects this Government to make trade deals with the likes of the United States while simultaneously seeking to break international law in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol and putting at risk the Good Friday agreement?

Robin Walker: I have been clear on our intention to deliver on the protocol and to meet both our international commitments and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in that regard. Indeed, we have already discussed in these exchanges the fact that the protocol is there to protect the Good Friday agreement and the peace arrangements. That is exactly what the US Government have urged us to do, and we shall continue to discuss with them how we are absolutely determined to protect the peace process.

Tobias Ellwood: The recent focus on the Northern Ireland protocol has not just raised questions about our commitment to uphold international law but shone a light on our wider commitment to play a more influential role on the international stage. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to re-establishing greater western resolve, 2021 could be a big year for the United Kingdom, as we host COP26 and take on the presidency of the G7, but that that can happen only if we secure a trade deal with the EU, protect our overseas aid budget, complete a costed integrated review and bury the myth that we might consider deliberately breaching international law?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend is very kind not only to promote me to right hon. but to try to give me responsibility for things way beyond my brief. The UK has a vital role to play on the international scene and it is vital that we meet our commitments with regard to the protocol, which I believe we will do.

Christine Jardine: The Minister has assured us that he wants the Government to meet their international commitments, their commitments to the Northern Ireland protocol and their commitments to the Good Friday agreement, and to maintain their relationship with the United States. Will he tell us, then, what the Government have done in reconsidering their position since President-elect Biden has made it absolutely clear that he is not happy with the current situation and that that will be taken into account in any trade talks once he enters the White House in January?

Robin Walker: Although, again, I am not responsible for trade negotiations or the relationship with the United States, I recognise that the United States is a crucial  investor and partner in Northern Ireland: more than almost any other country, it has invested in the peace process and provided jobs and prosperity in Northern Ireland. We should continue to support that, to work closely with the United States and to make absolutely clear to them our determination to support the peace process and the Good Friday agreement, part of the principles of which the protocol is delivering in terms of the importance of both east-west and north-south arrangements.

Andrew Murrison: The protocol anticipates progress by the Joint Committee on the issue of fisheries relating to Northern Ireland and Ireland; what assurances does the Minister anticipate will be forthcoming on the future relationship that will ensure that UK boats that land fish and shellfish in Northern Ireland will not be subject to tariffs, customs demands or other technical impediments?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We will pursue specific solutions for Great Britain vessels with the EU separately. The approach to landing for GB vessels in Northern Ireland is linked to, but not subject to, ongoing discussions with the EU regarding Northern Ireland landings for Northern Ireland vessels within the Joint Committee process.

Rachael Maskell: When I was a shadow Transport Minister, I debated the significant risk of documentation, IT infrastructure and systems not being ready at the end of the transition period. My concerns were dismissed, but here we are in a state of chaos, 43 days before we leave the current arrangements. Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), in light of the fact that the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy has said that 20% of Northern Ireland trade with Great Britain transits via Dublin port, what facilitations are the UK planning to ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods arriving into Holyhead from Dublin port?

Robin Walker: The hon. Lady raises an important point, and we want to ensure that all Northern Ireland goods that are coming to GB to be used in GB can have that unfettered access. This is still subject to discussions with the EU, and we would hope to make progress on that front, but in the meantime we are delivering on our commitments legislatively through bringing forward the statutory instrument on the definition of Northern Ireland qualifying goods. That will be the first stage in a process to make sure that all Northern Ireland qualifying goods can enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK.

Richard Holden: The SNP is always seeking to exploit this issue just to further its separatist agenda. Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP should welcome the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which will protect over half a million jobs in Scotland that rely on trade with the rest of the UK, particularly north-east England?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is right that Scotland, like Northern Ireland, benefits enormously from its trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is incumbent on Members from all parts of the House to work together to make sure that we protect and increase that trade.

Rosie Cooper: Will the Minister confirm that the vital trader support service, desperately needed to remove the burden on businesses from custom checks, will launch only on 21 December? Does he accept that leaving seven working days is an insult to businesses whose livelihoods depend on this system working seamlessly?

Robin Walker: The service is already signing businesses up, and as I said earlier, more than 7,000 businesses across Great Britain and Northern Ireland have signed up so far. We are seeing hundreds more registrations every day, so I do not recognise the point that the hon. Lady makes, but it is vital that the service is in place for the end of the transition period and the beginning of the new arrangements, and it is vital that it reaches as many businesses as it possibly can.

Kerry McCarthy: There are concerns that the end of the margin scheme could destroy the Northern Irish second-hand car market because VAT would then have to be paid on the full purchase price of cars from GB, not just the profit. Does the Minister think that we can expect this to be resolved during negotiations, or if not, what impact does he think that it will have on the car market in Northern Ireland?

Robin Walker: This is an important issue, which I have already undertaken in this statement to discuss further with Treasury colleagues. Perhaps I can write back to the hon. Lady further to those discussions.

Bob Blackman: Will my hon. Friend update the House and clarify for us what the position will be on live animal exports from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, and from Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain, following 1 January?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to ensure—and the protocol will ensure—that animals can continue to move between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is important and reflects existing patterns of trade between the two. With regard to goods coming from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, we of course want to make sure that we provide unfettered access for Northern Ireland qualifying goods, and the definition of that is the crux of my hon. Friend’s question. That is an issue on which we continue to work closely with the agriculture and agrifood industry.

Sammy Wilson: The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was today warned by Aodhán Connolly and Stephen Kelly, who represent sectors of business in Northern Ireland, of the great difficulties that their sectors are going to face. Ironically, both gentlemen are partly to blame for the restrictions that they are now complaining about, because they led the charge in propagating the mythical problems that will exist across the Irish border after Brexit. Will the Minister give us an assurance that if the EU insists on its interpretation of the withdrawal agreement—which will disrupt food supplies, supplies to farmers and supplies to manufacturers in Northern Ireland—as it is entitled to under article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, the Government will act unilaterally to protect the Northern Ireland economy and Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom?

Robin Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the concerns of those businesses. We share those concerns and we want to resolve them through the Joint Committee, but as he knows, and as we have shown through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, where we need to take steps to protect our commitment to unfettered access and the UK internal market, we will.

Suzanne Webb: With over 25 years of working, living and breathing importing and exporting, I understand the importance of protecting the unfettered access between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for his guarantee that it will be protected. Does he agree that all the naysayers do is bring uncertainty to businesses and local economies, and that they need to get on board with the fact that unfettered access will be protected by the UK Government?

Robin Walker: Yes. My hon. Friend clearly speaks with considerable experience. She is right that that certainty is crucial to Northern Ireland businesses and businesses across the UK, and we should get on and deliver it in all circumstances.

Patrick Grady: If anything will be disastrous for devolution, it is the Government’s United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but the Minister does not seem to get the point put to him by several Members. How is the Government’s determination to reinstate the clauses that allow them to break international law compatible with the assurance that the Prime Minister gave President-elect Biden that he would not allow Brexit to undermine the Good Friday agreement?

Robin Walker: Absolutely explicitly, there is nothing in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that in any way contradicts the Good Friday agreement or our delivery on it. We want to ensure that we can protect the unfettered access to the rest of the UK on which the Northern Ireland economy depends. That is something that the hon. Member and his party should be working with us to deliver.

Aaron Bell: I thank the Minister for his answers. Perhaps if we were having this question in a week’s time, we would have some more clarity, because the negotiations are clearly moving to a conclusion. We all hope it will be a successful one. While I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the details, will he confirm that any permanent EU presence in Northern Ireland will be resisted by the   Government and that, while the Commission will have rights of supervision, all checks on agrifood entering Northern Ireland will be conducted by British authorities?

Robin Walker: I confirm to my hon. Friend that this is something on which we have taken a clear position in the UK-EU Joint Committee. It is for the UK to implement the protocol. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), the details of that implementation should be for UK officials, employees of the UK Government and their partners in the devolved Administrations, not for the EU.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for seeking the urgent question. As it draws to a close, the questions remain many, yet the answers are few. I make no apology for raising again the VAT margins issue raised on three occasions thus far. With 43 days to go, it simply is not good enough for the Minister to say that he will now have a conversation with HMRC and the Treasury. Will he commit today that, if this issue is not resolved in the overarching agreements with the European Union, the Government will rectify it through a finance Bill?

Robin Walker: A number of commitments have already been made on a finance Bill. I have undertaken to discuss this issue further with Treasury Ministers, and I will.

Greg Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in fact because of the necessary measures brought forward by the Government in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that there will be legal certainty around the integrity of our Union at the end of the transition and not, as Opposition Members have argued, the other way round?

Robin Walker: Yes, I wholly agree. It is crucial that we provide that certainty. I have heard time and time again from Northern Ireland businesses about the importance of that certainty to their biggest single market: the rest of the UK. We must deliver on that as we deliver on the wider protocol.

Eleanor Laing: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next item of business, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Towns Fund

Justin Madders: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the towns fund.

Robert Jenrick: The towns fund is one element of this Government’s mission to spread opportunity and to level up by investing in towns and smaller cities—places to support businesses and communities so that we can help them to thrive.
Last year we announced that 101 places had been invited to develop proposals for a town deal as part of the £3.6 billion towns fund. These towns are spread across the country. Many are birthplaces of industry and centres of commerce. Others are bastions of the maritime economy or the pleasures of the English seaside. Others are great agricultural and market towns. They are all different. But what they do have in common is that they have been underinvested in and undervalued by central Government for too long as too much investment has been centred on our big cities.
Town deals are about reversing that trend. They are about providing investment and confidence at a crucial time for these communities. Through town deals, we are driving economic regeneration and growth, raising living standards and boosting productivity. We are investing in new uses for often derelict and unloved spaces. We are creating new cultural and economic assets that will benefit those communities not just today but for generations to come. We are connecting people through better infrastructure both digital and physical, such as the new walking and cycling routes planned for Torquay and the creation of the new digi-tech factory in Norwich.
We have already made some investments as a rapid response to the effects of covid-19 where towns are particularly vulnerable. Up-front grants of up to £1 million are being spent in places such Burton-on-Trent, on its new main shopping centre to allow greater access for pedestrians and cyclists, or on demolishing and rebuilding unloved buildings in places like Newcastle-under-Lyme. Many towns are repurposing empty shops into vibrant community and business spaces that will help them to bounce back when covid is done.
Each town selected to bid for a town deal is eligible for an investment of up to £25 million. Of course, that is not guaranteed, and all proposals are rigorously assessed by officials in my Department. In exceptional circumstances, such as the nationally significant plans for the great town of Blackpool, we will invest more. I am particularly excited by Blackpool’s plans to make its illuminations even more impressive and attract more visitors when they are back next year.
Town deals are about more than simply investment. They are about the whole town coming together, to create and share a genuine vision for the future of that place. We have just offered Barrow-in-Furness a town deal that will help to address the skills gap, create better housing and support local businesses to grow and employ more people. I am hugely excited by these deals. They offer a chance to turn around the fortunes of many, many places.
This is just the start. The Government are committed to levelling up all parts of the country. We want everyone, wherever they live, to benefit from increased economic growth and prosperity. Town deals are but one way to achieve that. All Members of the House will agree that places such as Blackpool, Barrow and Darlington need and deserve investment, and they will have it under this Government. The work of the towns fund is just beginning.

Justin Madders: Thank you for granting the urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, although many questions remain unanswered. He discussed the Blackpool illuminations, and we certainly need illumination on this side of the House about exactly why particular towns were chosen and not others. Can he tell us what was in his mind when he ignored civil servants’ advice and allocated funding to low-priority towns? Was it really a complete coincidence that all the low-priority towns that he chose happened to be in Tory-held or target seats? We have heard nothing to convince us that it is anything other than a deliberate ploy.
Serious concerns have been expressed, not just by Opposition Members but by the National Audit Office and the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. We are told that we are making the issue party political, but I remind Government Members that we are not the only ones who question this process. This is party political because the Government made it so in the first place by gerrymandering the fund. Can the Secretary of State give us assurances that the whole rationale for these decisions will be published and that any future rounds of the towns fund will be dealt with solely on merit?
I want to know whether Ellesmere Port will get a fair crack of the whip next time round. Before the scheme was announced we were told that we were well placed for the next round of funding. If the funds had been allocated on the scores alone there is no doubt that we would have qualified for support, and we would have put that money to good use, because there are ambitious plans for the town, ready to go, that only need Government support to be realised. When is the next opportunity, and will funding be allocated on a transparent and impartial basis? Does the Secretary of State accept that the pandemic has accelerated the challenges that many towns face and urgent action is needed? There can be no levelling up if one structural bias is replaced by another. There can be no levelling up if the playing field is uneven, and there can be no levelling up if large parts of the country are ignored just because they voted the wrong way.

Robert Jenrick: I look forward to receiving a bid from Ellesmere Port in the competitive phase next year. It seems as if the hon. Gentleman wants more of the towns fund, not less, and we can all agree that this is an important investment opportunity for places throughout the country.
A rigorous and robust procedure was put in place by the Department, before I or any other Minister set foot in the Department. That was then followed; we followed the advice of our excellent civil servants in the Department —it is a pity that the Opposition tried to cast aspersions on them—by selecting the 40 most highly ranked towns and smaller cities that their methodology drew up. It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman has such great enthusiasm for algorithm-based policy making. We have  learned in the past year that a degree of judgment and qualitative analysis is also useful. The officials advised just that. They said that in addition to those 40 places we should use our judgment to select other places for inclusion from the list informed by the information and advice that they provided to us, because many of those places were quite finely balanced.
That is entirely consistent, and is set out in the work that the Department has shared with the National Audit Office. I have seen the recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee and, in the usual way, the Department will respond. The permanent secretary of my Department has made it clear that Ministers followed a rigorous and robust procedure in full. That is quite right, and that is how we will approach the next round of funding.
All of us on both sides of the House should be able to agree that this fund is important and that these places need investment. We are working very well with Labour councils in these places. The hon. Gentleman says that these are Conservative-voting places. I am afraid that it is not the towns fund that is responsible for the way people have voted in those communities—it is the fact that Labour MPs and successive Labour Governments have let down those communities for too long. More than 60% of the towns and smaller cities that we have invested in have Labour councils, and we are working extremely well with them, whether that is Wolverhampton or St Helens; I am sure we will hear other examples today. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to continue to invest and level up.

Jane Stevenson: I am disappointed to see an attempt to score political points over a fantastic policy that is hopefully bringing investment to places such as Wolverhampton. In Wolverhampton, we have worked very constructively on our really rounded bid with MPs of both parties, under a Labour-led council, and local stakeholders. This policy has been met with unanimous positivity in the city of Wolverhampton, so I thank the Secretary of State for it. We are anxiously awaiting the result of our bid. One element of our bid that is very important to me is Wednesfield, a town in my constituency that has felt ignored for a number of decades. I would like reassurance that any money allocated to Wednesfield from this bid will be ring-fenced and will not be spent on other elements of the towns fund.

Robert Jenrick: I think the rules of the towns fund allow for funding to be devoted to a project anywhere within the boundaries that are agreed between my Department and the city or town concerned. I encourage my hon. Friend or officials from Wolverhampton City Council to get in touch with my officials to agree whether funding can be devoted to Wednesfield, because she makes a strong case for that. She made the point well that we are working extremely productively with local councils across the country of all political persuasions. I have spoken to the Labour leader of Wolverhampton City Council a number of times over the last year. He and his fellow councillors of all party persuasions support the towns fund and are in the process of putting in some strong proposals, and I look forward to a successful result in due course.

Steve Reed: The Secretary of State is accused today of blocking funding from the £3.6 billion towns fund going to the most deprived towns for which it was intended, and instead funnelling it into marginal Conservative party seats ahead of the general election, including to help his own re-election campaign. This clearly is not about levelling up, so let us see whether he will level with the British people about what really went on.
Did the Secretary of State discuss which towns would receive funding with No. 10 or any Conservative party employee before making the allocations, and will he publish any correspondence? Why did he tell his constituents,
“I helped to secure a £25 million town deal which…will…make the town centre a more attractive place to spend time in”,
despite claiming not to have been involved in any decision about Newark on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 11 October 2020? Was he present when his junior Minister made decisions about his constituency, and will he publish all minutes from that meeting, in which they both chose 61 towns that would benefit from funding?
What did the Secretary of State mean when he said that the Government would “only” commit £25 million to Stapleford in the constituency of Broxtowe if the Conservative party candidate, Darren Henry, was elected? Newark and Sherwood District Council removed the Secretary of State from its board “following conversations with Government”. What were those conversations, and did they take place before or after he saw the damning NAO report?
Finally, will the Secretary of State clear this up and publish in full the accounting officer’s assessment of the towns fund and the full criteria that he and his Ministers used to select towns when they chose to override civil servants’ advice? If he refuses to publish, the public can only conclude that it is because they have something to hide.

Robert Jenrick: Once again, the hon. Gentleman seeks to sow discord where there is none. We followed a very clear and robust procedure. The permanent secretary of my Department made that very clear when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. Again, I think it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman chooses to cast aspersions upon distinguished civil servants.
With respect to the accounting officer’s advice, such advice is not routinely published. That is a decision not for Ministers, but for civil servants. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is highly misleading in his remarks, because the accounting officer’s advice was shared in full with the National Audit Office when it produced its report for the PAC. The Chair of the PAC asked to see the report and, in line with usual practice, the permanent secretary wrote a comprehensive summary of the advice. I have asked him once again to check that advice, and he says that the summary was comprehensive and covered all the points. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has all the information at her fingertips, as I suspect she knows perfectly well, because she is a highly experienced Member of this House.
With respect to Newark, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman shows such interest in my constituency. Perhaps he could come up and visit us, but he does not like to go north of the M25 very often. If he did, he would know that Newark was the 16th most highly ranked town in the east midlands to be a beneficiary of  the fund, and we supported 19 places in the east midlands. There is absolutely no reason why a Minister should disadvantage their constituency. We are both Ministers and constituency MPs, which is one of the great virtues of our political system, but it is right that those decisions are not taken by that particular Minister and, in the usual way, the decision was taken by a colleague.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s question about why I had said on the campaign trail that the fund’s future would be in question if there were a Labour Government, I think he has made that point for us today. He does not support the towns fund. The 101 places that are benefiting from it would be poorer if they had been under a Labour Government.
The message from the Labour party is very clear today: while we want to level up, it wants to score pointless political points. The shadow Secretary of State cannot talk about local government because his own Labour council has gone bankrupt with debts of £1.5 billion. He cannot talk about communities, because the committee on antisemitism has called him out, along with the majority of the members of the community team on the Labour Front Bench, for antisemitic incidents—quite how he can stay in position after that, I do not know. He cannot talk about housing because he has said that his team has no housing policies, and it will be years before he produces any. He cannot talk about housing because we are building more homes than any Government have done for the past 30 years. We will keep on building homes, we will keep on levelling up, and we will keep on investing in the communities that need it.

Lee Anderson: The towns fund will help reverse the decline in places such as Ashfield and other ex-Labour strongholds in the midlands and the north, where, during decades of Labour MPs and Labour councils, the only thing on offer was more decline and more broken promises. The £1.5 million accelerated towns funding is already being put to good use in my area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour should be supporting our plans to level up in the old industrial towns in the north, and will he meet me to discuss how I can get the town of Eastwood on my patch to be included in the next round of funding?

Robert Jenrick: I have to say that I do not recall my hon. Friend’s predecessor coming to me to lobby for investment in his community. What a refreshing difference it is to have a Conservative MP in Ashfield who is fighting for investment for that community. I would be delighted to meet him and discuss his plans to take Ashfield forward.

David Linden: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing today’s urgent question. During Monday’s departmental questions, I raised my concerns about the lack of clarity on the Barnettisation of towns funding and received the usual “jam tomorrow” answer that Scotland has become so accustomed to hearing from Whitehall, but what we are increasingly seeing from this Conservative Government is cronyism and sleaze, particularly from the Secretary of State’s Department. First, we have the Westferry scandal calling into question the Secretary of State’s inappropriate contact with Tory donor and property developer, Richard Desmond. Secondly, the coronavirus pandemic has seen  the British Government award £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money to companies linked to the Tories. Finally, last week we saw a damning report from the Public Accounts Committee, which said on the subject of towns funding that the Government
“has also not been open about the process it followed and it did not disclose the reasoning for selecting or excluding towns. This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process”.
That report was signed off by Conservative MPs. Why can the Secretary of State not see, as everybody else can, that this stinks to high heaven and that sunlight—producing those accounting reports—is the best disinfectant?
The UK stronger towns fund is only 10% of what the UK would have received from EU cohesion funds if it had remained in the EU. Can the Secretary of State confirm that other towns funds and schemes will make up the shortfall from the stronger towns fund?

Robert Jenrick: I already responded at departmental questions that the question of Barnettisation of the fund will be a matter for the spending review. The hon. Gentleman I think said erroneously at departmental questions that it had taken us a number of weeks or even months to respond to him. That was not the case; actually, we responded immediately to his question at the previous departmental questions. I am happy to resend him a copy of that if he seems to have mislaid it.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s wider questions, I have already answered that we followed a robust procedure. That has been set out by the Department. My permanent secretary, in giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, made that abundantly clear.

Andy Carter: May I congratulate Warrington’s town deal board, which is cross-party, private and public sector, for its tremendous collaboration in securing £22 million for this area? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Communities Secretary, who pretends to be concerned about taxpayers’ money, should look closer to home, where his friends in Croydon have bankrupted the local council through terrible investment and financial mismanagement?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are looking to the shadow Secretary of State as the guardian of value for money and the Exchequer, I think the public will be sorely disappointed. It is probably about time that he spoke out about the activities of Croydon Council. Croydon Council’s mismanagement of public money has been, frankly, catastrophic and shocking. Who will lose out as a result? It will be the people of Croydon, who will see their services reduced and will have to deal for years to come with the toxic legacy of a Labour council that the shadow Secretary of State has fastidiously supported.

Cat Smith: Who authorised the 18 taxpayer-funded adverts that were placed on Facebook by the Secretary of State’s Department and were subsequently removed by Facebook?

Robert Jenrick: All spending by the Department is approved, by definition, by the Department, through the accounting officer and the permanent secretary.

Danny Kruger: I very much support the towns fund, but I support even more the principle of the town deal, which lies behind it. That is the right way to level up the country—not just by allocating dollops of funding from Whitehall but by working with local leaders, councils and local enterprise partnerships that have a vision for their town to develop a plan to invest in it. Does my right hon. Friend agree, though, that we need to go beyond just councils and LEPs and ensure that money and power go directly to civil society and community groups that have a more granular vision for their place?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend has been a champion of this for some time, and his brilliant report published earlier in the year made the case once again. One of the ideas behind the town deal is, exactly as he describes, not just for central Government to work directly with a particular local council—although, as I say, relations with local councils have been uniformly excellent in this process—but to broaden it out by bringing in members of the business community, members of civil society and Members of Parliament of all political persuasions. That is happening across the country. On Friday, I had the pleasure of joining a Zoom call with St Helens Council and the local community of St Helens, including the two Members of Parliament for St Helens, to hear their brilliant proposals and to offer my support and that of my Department as they bring them forward to fruition.

Mark Jenkinson: In my constituency, Workington will hopefully receive £25 million from the towns deal and Maryport £17 million from the future high streets fund. These figures will make a tangible difference to communities such as mine that have previously been let down by their political leadership. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition Benches might not be so empty if Labour had done more for its communities when it held those seats and local councils?

Robert Jenrick: I welcome the fact that Workington has the opportunity to bid for the funding. It will make a difference. The communities that my hon. Friend represents are exactly the sorts of places that we set out to support when we created the towns fund and the future high streets fund. These are places that have not routinely received substantial amounts of Government funding, and that extra investment for skills, for culture, for digital and transport infrastructure and for the revitalisation of places and high streets will be really welcomed by local people. As I have said to other colleagues, I very much look forward to seeing the plans come to fruition if Workington is successful.

Nick Smith: Contrary to the Secretary of State’s remarks, the Public Accounts Committee says that the criteria for funding the towns fund were insufficient and “vague”. So, once again, I ask the Minister to release in full the accounting officer’s assessment of the scheme.

Robert Jenrick: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, but I do not think he understands what accounting officer’s advice is and how it corresponds with advice from the permanent secretary before the Public Accounts Committee. The permanent secretary is—[Interruption.] Well, I’m afraid  that says it all. A member of the Committee himself does not know. The permanent secretary is the accounting officer. The permanent secretary at the time wrote the advice. The permanent secretary gave evidence before the hon. Gentleman’s Committee and shared a summary of the accounting officer’s advice with the Committee that the hon. Gentleman is a member of, so I am rather confused about what his point is.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the £1 million already given to Telford and Wrekin as part of the accelerated delivery fund—a Labour council, by the way. I just wonder whether the Secretary of State will have time to look at the excellent proposals from Telford’s town board, particularly around maths and digital education and the ambitions for links into local manufacturing. Can I put in a very strong plea that, while we want to level up northern towns, we do not forget the west midlands towns? Can I also put in a very strong bid for the full £25 million, please?

Robert Jenrick: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I had the pleasure of visiting Telford recently, and I met the chief executive of Telford and Wrekin Council and members of the town board, who showed me some of their exciting proposals, including the beautiful new bridge linking Telford railway station with the town centre and the science and technology section of the town that they are hoping to build adjacent to the shopping centre. That seemed a very strong proposal to me, but of course I look forward to receiving the proposals in due course.

Jamie Stone: Clearly, this issue is just as big north of the border as it is in the rest of the UK. If I look out of the window of my office in my home town of Tain, I can see many formerly prosperous businesses and shops that are now boarded up and gone. I would not be surprised to see tumbleweed blowing down Tain’s high street sometime in the future. May I ask the Secretary of State two things? First, is this going to be recognised by means of Barnett consequentials—that is, with the money going to the Scottish Government? If so, will he use his good offices to persuade the Scottish Government to spend the money where it desperately needs to be spent—that is, in the town centres the length and breadth of Scotland that are falling into ruination and disrepair?

Eleanor Laing: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask two things, but let me just point out that we must have one question per person, or else we will be here all day.

Robert Jenrick: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be swift. As I said in an earlier answer, the question of Barnettisation will be settled at the spending review, and hon. Members do not have very long to wait for the answers there. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, he is absolutely right. The challenges facing smaller cities and towns are consistent across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the reason we set up the towns fund, and that is why we having been doing town and city deals in all parts of the UK, including a large number in Scotland.

Dehenna Davison: I think it shows how far Labour has fallen from its natural home that it is essentially condemning funding going into  some of the most deprived communities in our nation. That is absolutely astonishing to witness. The residents of Bishop Auckland are incredibly grateful to have been shortlisted not only for the towns fund but for the future high streets fund, and to have received £750,000 of accelerated funding. We are doing some incredible cross-party and cross-community working on our towns board to secure that deal, and I look forward to that bid going in. My question to the Secretary of State is: if the towns fund is opened up in future, will he seriously consider including Spennymoor in that, because Bishop Auckland is a tale of four towns, and Spennymoor deserves its fair share?

Robert Jenrick: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a fantastic champion for her constituency since she was elected just a short time ago. As she says, it is a reflection on the Labour party—at least in Westminster—that it wants to pour cold water on a fund that is doing so much good work in communities across the country. Fortunately, that is quite a different picture from what we are seeing from local councils of all political persuasions elsewhere, which really want to get on board and make a huge success of these proposals. We will be doing a competitive phase next year, and I look forward to an application from the other parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Kerry McCarthy: From this towns fund being handed out to Tory seats, to the money being squandered on covid contracts and the ferry contract being awarded to a company with no ferries, this is all part of a very murky picture, is it not? How can my constituents have any confidence at all that public money is being well spent when cronyism, mates’ rates and political manoeuvring seem to be at the heart of so much Government decision making, not to mention downright incompetence?

Robert Jenrick: Well, I did not detect a question there, other than a whole series of pointless innuendos. We are going to keep focusing on what the public want us to do, which is investing and levelling up in the communities that need it the most despite all the challenges of covid, and that is exactly what this fund does.

James Davies: The towns fund is, of course, an England-only fund, but the Government’s levelling-up agenda means supporting towns right across the UK, including Rhyl in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend commit to exploring opportunities for the shared prosperity fund and other sources of financial assistance to help redevelop Rhyl’s Queen’s Market?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the shared prosperity fund will be a great opportunity for the whole United Kingdom to come together; for us to be doing work not dissimilar to the activities of the towns fund and the high streets fund, investing in skills, transport, technology and in place in a way we simply have not been able to do while those funds have been directed through the bureaucracy and regulation of the European Union. As we design the UK’s shared prosperity fund and bring it to fruition in the early part of next year, I will certainly be listening to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Wales.

Peter Grant: Among the damning judgments issued last week by the Public Accounts Committee was that
“we are not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others. The justification offered by ministers…are vague and based on sweeping assumptions. In some cases, towns were chosen by ministers despite being identified by officials as the very lowest priority… The Department has also not been open about the process it followed… This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process”.
That is just a selection of findings from one page of a 21-page report. I have seen the summary accounting officer assessment provided in confidence to the Public Accounts Committee, which most Members taking part in today’s session have not, and I do not think that summary exonerates Ministers in anything like the way the Secretary of State is claiming. Why will his Department not allow that summary to be published, so that hon. Members can do their job and decide for themselves?

Robert Jenrick: I think I have already answered that point: the accounting officer’s advice is not routinely published within Whitehall. That is a matter for the Department and the civil service more generally. However, it has been shared with the Public Accounts Committee, and I am pleased to see that at least one member of the Committee actually bothered to read it, unlike others present in the Chamber. It is a fair summary, and my permanent secretary has attested to that.

Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for the answers he has given thus far. London is effectively a network of towns and villages, not just the centre of London. What hope can he give to parts of London that are suffering from deprivation, and need capital and revenue investment just to get them started on the route to recovery?

Robert Jenrick: We have actually included communities within larger cities in both the towns fund and the future high streets fund, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there can be a world of difference between Birmingham city centre and the high street in Brierley Hill, and we want to support those places as well. There were beneficiaries of the future high streets fund in London, for example: I recall Putney putting in a bid that will now be considered by the Department, and it is absolutely right that we do that. Covid has of course brought profound challenges even to some of our most robust city centres, including London, Manchester and Birmingham, so it will be a focus of my Department’s work in the weeks and months ahead. We will give what support we can, working with Mayors, city council leaders and the GLA to provide further support for the renewal and adaptation of those places.

Jo Gideon: Stoke-on-Trent is a city of six towns and three highly motivated Conservative Members of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend knows, we work together to ensure joined-up strategic thinking and maximum benefit for everyone in Stoke-on-Trent. On behalf of all three Stoke-on-Trent MPs, will he ensure that the bid process for the next round of town deals will allow for a Stoke deal featuring three of our towns, Hanley, Longton and Tunstall, and will recognise the importance of investment in our towns in the future vision for our city as a whole?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this previously. The criteria designed by the Department for the towns fund placed an upper limit on the size of communities that were able to benefit from it, because it was supposed to support towns and smaller cities. I appreciate that the circumstances of Stoke are unusual because, although a city, it is a collection of historical towns, so it was not able to be considered as part of the process. When we design the criteria for the competitive phase, we will take into consideration her view that collections of towns, even within a broader city, might be eligible.

Chris Matheson: When I consider the constituencies of the hon. Members on the Government Benches who have contributed so far—indeed, the constituencies of other hon. Members who are in their places—such as Wolverhampton North East, Ashfield, Warrington South, Workington and Bishop Auckland, and I see the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), every single one of those constituencies scored less than Ellesmere Port and Neston in the same borough as the City of Chester, and yet they were awarded the money and Ellesmere Port was not. We know that rankings are important, because the Secretary of State used the ranking of Newark in the east midlands to justify money being awarded to his own constituency. Let me ask him specifically: who took the decision to exclude Ellesmere Port town centre from the money allocation, and what criteria were used?

Robert Jenrick: I have been very clear that, on the advice of civil servants, we gave the opportunity to bid for a town deal to the 40 most highly ranked. Then, in accordance with the advice of civil servants, we applied a qualitative judgment in coming to conclusions on the others. As the civil servants made clear, some of those communities were very finely balanced, and it was important to take a geographical spread and a spread of different types of community, whether ex-coalfield, seaside, market towns, or sub-high streets and communities within great cities.
With respect to Ellesmere Port, I look forward to receiving a bid in the competitive phase to come. I point out that the Department chose Ellesmere Port to be one of the 14 pilots for our high streets taskforce. I hope that the significant amounts of money that we are investing and spending in Ellesmere Port are making a difference and regenerating its high street.

Jason McCartney: I have been watching on with great admiration at the way in which Labour-run Kirklees Council has been working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) on their transformational bid to the towns fund for the town of Dewsbury in the constituency neighbouring mine. The Secretary of State kindly visited Holmfirth, one of my market towns, a year ago. Will he look at another round of the towns fund and, if so, may I share that around my numerous communities, so not just Holmfirth but Marsden, Slaithwaite, Milnsbridge and Lindley, to do something similar to what they are doing in Dewsbury?

Robert Jenrick: I had a very enjoyable visit to Holmfirth, one of the most special places in Yorkshire. I will be delighted to consider proposals from the town in the  future. We will be bringing forward a competitive phase next year, as I said. From comments across the House today, we have heard loud and clear that there is great support for the towns fund. Colleagues of all political persuasions want to see more towns benefiting from it, so I will be taking that message to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Derek Twigg: I am a member of the Runcorn town board, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), present on the Front Bench, is also supportive of the bid being developed for Runcorn. The time and the bid are exciting, because we have seen the development of the Runcorn station quarter and we have a fantastic community initiative to restore the locks of the Bridgewater canal and the link back to the Manchester ship canal. Given what has been said today, will the Secretary of State give us an assurance, that Runcorn will not be treated less favourably than other town centres in Conservative constituencies?

Robert Jenrick: Absolutely not.

Aaron Bell: I thank the Secretary of State for his answers so far and, indeed, for giving Newcastle-under-Lyme a shout-out in his initial answer. The £1 million we have had so far has been put to good use. We also have the future high streets funding and the rest of our town deal bid to come. That will represent more investment in Newcastle-under-Lyme than it had in 100 years of Labour MPs and many Labour Governments during that time.
I have to tell the Secretary of State, however, that the coronavirus pandemic is having a lasting effect on our town centre. Many retail units are closing and seem unlikely to reopen. Does he agree that this pandemic in fact presents an opportunity to rethink our town centres and, particularly in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to ensure that they thrive, by repurposing retail space into, potentially, office or residential space?

Robert Jenrick: I should say, just to clarify my answer to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), because he seemed confused by it, that the point I was making was that absolutely, his bid will be treated with all fairness and I hope it is successful.
With respect to my hon. Friend’s question, Newcastle-under-Lyme is a town that I know very well and I can see the great proposals coming forward there. He makes the same very important point that a number of colleagues have made today—namely, that covid will accelerate market forces in our towns and city centres. It will make investment of this kind more important than ever and even more prescient than when these funds were created. I hope that they will be a shot in the arm—a boost of confidence—for communities as they begin to recover from the covid pandemic, and that they will help them to adapt and evolve, turning empty shops into homes, and beautiful buildings back to the uses that they were made for.

Andrew Gwynne: I support boosting towns. The Secretary of State talks about a robust procedure and fine balance. There are plenty of communities in Stockport that would be worthy recipients of towns fund money, including Reddish, so what instead attracted him to Cheadle? Was it its  unemployment rate, at 3% below the north-west average? Was it its deprivation ranking, decile seven, making it one of the north’s least deprived areas? Was it its low shop vacancy rate? Was it his Department’s assessment ranking it the 535th priority out of 541 towns? Or was it the Tory majority of just 2,366? [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. No clapping from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). If he wishes to make some audible sound, that is a different matter.

Robert Jenrick: Well, it is not a terribly good look for the Labour party to say that it does not want investment to go into Cheadle. I think that the good people of Cheadle will welcome the fact that they are part of the town deal, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) will be working very hard with her town board to bring forward exciting proposals for the place. We are working extremely well with Labour councils and MPs throughout the north-west, though perhaps not with the hon. Gentleman, to bring forward proposals, and we have just heard from one in Cheshire.

Philip Davies: May I urge the Secretary of State to ignore the siren voices on the Opposition Benches and thank him for including Shipley in the towns fund, which is very much needed? I am sure my constituents will be very interested to hear that the Labour party seems to be indicating that it does not think that Shipley should have been included in the towns fund. May I ask the Secretary of State to go further? Although it is very much needed and welcomed in Shipley, my towns of Bingley and Baildon would also very much welcome this funding and very much need it. I hope that he will do future towns funds and that Baildon and Bingley will both be included.

Robert Jenrick: I thank my hon. Friend and will bear that in mind when we come to the competitive phase of the process. He makes the broader point very powerfully—namely, that from what we have heard this afternoon, Labour Front Benchers are now explicitly opposed to investment in these 100 places. He can take back to the people of Shipley and Bradford that, if there were a Labour Government, this funding would certainly not be flowing to their communities.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. Secretary of State, it is my understanding that local enterprise partnerships—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not say “Secretary of State” to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has to say, “Madam Deputy Speaker, does the Secretary of State…” I am sure eventually I will achieve my ambition of having the hon. Member for Strangford use the third person and not the second person. He does not address the Secretary of State directly.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that local enterprise partnerships and investment promotion agencies across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were invited to submit nominations for the second round of the high  potential opportunities scheme by 17 April 2020. I would be anxious to know the success of Northern Ireland applications for the towns fund.

Robert Jenrick: From memory, the fund he is referring to was established by the Secretary of State at the Department for International Trade, but I will take his representations to my right hon. Friend and ensure that he gets a fulsome answer as quickly as possible.

Gavin Newlands: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to rush off after the Secretary of State’s answer for a Westminster Hall debate. The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions estimated that Scotland will lose out on €840 million by 2027 due to the loss of access to EU regional development funds. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the funds apportioned to Scotland, assuming that they will be, from the stronger towns fund and the shared prosperity fund will make up that gap and that Scotland will not lose out on this substantial funding?

Robert Jenrick: We have made a manifesto commitment that I have repeated many times in this place that we will be bringing forward a UK shared prosperity fund. Further details on that will be set out at the spending review. It will ensure that all the nations of the United Kingdom receive the same level of funding in this Parliament as they received from the EU structural funds that we are moving away from.

Antony Higginbotham: I have spoken to businesses across Burnley and Padiham, and they are as excited as I am about the prospect of a towns deal. It will bring together the strength of the private sector with Government investment to level up and spur on our economy. I urge the Secretary of State to move at pace to release the next tranche of towns fund deals, so that we can get Burnley’s bid in.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for Burnley. As I say, we will bring forward that competitive phase early next year, and before the end of this year, I hope to be announcing the successful bidders for the future high streets fund, where we will be ensuring that up to £25 million of investment flows to dozens of communities across the country. It is another fund designed before covid, but it will be ever more important as we see the pressures wreaked on our high streets by the pandemic.

Chi Onwurah: It was really distressing to see such critical funding for our regions mired in political favouritism. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the shared prosperity fund does not suffer the same fate? Will he confirm that the north-east will receive from the shared prosperity fund at least the £1 billion that it would have got from the European structural funds?

Robert Jenrick: As I have already said, a fair and robust procedure was used to determine the places, and many places adjacent to the hon. Lady’s constituency have benefited. I think of Blyth, for example—a community that needed investment. It saw very little of it under the last Labour Government and will now, I hope, be benefiting. She represents a great city. That was not  the primary focus of the towns fund, as the name rather suggests.
With the UK shared prosperity fund, we will be ensuring that each of the nations of the United Kingdom receives the same funding as they did under the EU structural funds. We fundamentally believe that we can design better, more outcomes-focused funding streams than the European Union was ever able to do during our long years of membership. We will bring forward more details on that very soon.

Christopher Chope: May I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the element of the Public Accounts Committee report that says his Department misrepresented the National Audit Office by falsely asserting that it had concluded that the selection process had been robust? I ask that because it is important, surely, that the Government respect the work of the National Audit Office—now more than ever, when we are in an enormous public expenditure crisis. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and other Ministers will respect the work of the National Audit Office?

Robert Jenrick: As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee and a former Treasury Minister, I hold our colleagues at the National Audit Office in the highest esteem. They prepared a report that informed the hearing that was held by the Public Accounts Committee. At the Committee hearing, the permanent secretary of my Department gave evidence, answered questions and made it very clear that, in his opinion, a robust procedure had been followed. In my opinion, it was disappointing that the Chair of the Committee chose to give comments even before she had held that hearing, as that rather suggested that her approach was more partisan than one would expect from the Chair of that Committee.

Bill Esterson: Officials advised the Secretary of State to choose “relatively few” low priority towns. My constituents in Crosby accept that Crosby did not qualify because it was just outside the top 100. What they do not understand is why Southport—456 on the list—qualified and met the criteria that the Secretary of State described earlier. Will he confirm once and for all that the only politicisation on view today is the allocation of the towns fund to Tory key seats such as Southport?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. One only has to look at his neighbours to see good examples of that. I think of Birkenhead, for example, which I do not think was high on the list of Conservative targets at the last election, but which is now the proud   beneficiary of the right to bid for a town deal. I think of St Helens, where, as I have said, I met his Labour party colleagues—two fantastic MPs who are working hard on their town deal board to bring forward great proposals for the benefit of their local communities. A small number of places were chosen from what was deemed to be the low priority category, and that was exactly—

Steve Reed: Sixty!

Robert Jenrick: No. The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a habit of saying things in the House of Commons that are not exactly accurate. Sixty communities were not chosen from the low priority category; 17 such communities were chosen. [Interruption.] From his sudden change of demeanour, I take it that he is apologising for his remarks.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Whether or not the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) is apologising for his remarks is not a matter for me, but remarks should not be made while hon. Members are sitting down and do not have the floor, especially not from the Front Bench.

James Wild: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have read the summary of the accounting officer’s assessment, and can also confirm that our report says that the permanent secretary
“was satisfied the selection process met the requirements of propriety and regularity”.
In King’s Lynn, we welcome the opportunity to benefit from £25 million of investment. Will my right hon. Friend visit King’s Lynn to talk about our ambitious plan to create more opportunities for young people and innovative businesses, for an enhanced town centre with more cycling and walking, and that builds on our historic court and waterfront?

Robert Jenrick: Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise; I spoke in error a moment ago. It was not 17 communities that were chosen from the low priority category, but 12 —even fewer than I said a moment ago.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to read the accounting officer’s advice and that he considers it to be a fair summary that sets the record straight in terms of some comments that we have heard today. I would be delighted to visit King’s Lynn. It is exactly the sort of community that should be benefiting from these funds, and its bid for the future high streets fund will be considered carefully in the coming weeks.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Points of Order

David Linden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarification. In response to my earlier point, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary suggested that it did not take his Department four months to respond to  me and confirm that the stronger towns fund would be subject to the Barnettisation process. I actually have in my hand the letter from the Department in June responding to my letter in February and apologising for the delay in doing so. Is it appropriate for me to place a copy of this in the Library, and would it be appropriate in this circumstance for the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for inadvertently misleading the House?

Robert Jenrick: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Ah, further to that point of order—Secretary of State.

Robert Jenrick: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be delighted to respond to that point of order. The point that I was making was that the hon. Gentleman had implied that after he had raised it at our last questions session, it had taken four months to reply. As he can see, my private office—as soon as alerted to it by the hon. Gentleman at questions—responded immediately, so he was actually speaking in error himself.

Eleanor Laing: The point of order is clearly not a point of order for me, but an exchange—a further exchange—between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman. It has been satisfied, as far as I am concerned, in procedural terms. Whether it has been satisfied in political terms is not a matter for the Chair.

Mike Amesbury: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the general election campaign, the Conservative party candidate for Weaver Vale shared an image on social media that referred to the significant investment going to Runcorn old town; it came from Conservative party headquarters. I would just like to clarify—and to ask for advice about how I do clarify—whether a mistake of geography actually benefited my good colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)—it is actually in the constituency adjacent to mine.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a point of order. As I have just said in reply to the previous point of order, what is said by hon. Members and the veracity of it or otherwise is not a matter for the Chair. What is said in election literature by candidates who do not subsequently become Members of Parliament is definitely not a matter for the Chair, which is a matter of some relief for any occupant of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman asks me how he can draw his point to a wider audience. I think he has just done so.

Chi Onwurah: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Lady wish to raise a point of order?

Chi Onwurah: indicated dissent.

Eleanor Laing: No, the hon. Lady just wants to leave the Chamber. In order to facilitate the exit of the hon. Lady and all other Members and the safe entrance of those who wish to participate in the next item of business, I will suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Supported Accommodation

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Steve McCabe: I beg to move,
That leave given to bring in a Bill to require developers to disclose for planning purposes an intention to use a building for supported housing or other accommodation that is specified for the purposes of Universal Credit and Housing Benefit; to establish a suitability test for accommodation proposed for such use; to make provision about the fitness of persons to be landlords or managers of supported or other specified accommodation; and for connected purposes.
The issue of the conversion of small family homes to houses of multiple occupation that are subsequently used as unregistered hostels has become a real problem in my constituency. Unregistered hostels, or exempt accommodation, are a problem in many parts of Birmingham and elsewhere, as illustrated by other the Bills introduced to the House by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). They are a lucrative business for those who concentrate on what we call supported exempt accommodation, which is a part of the exempt-accommodation sector in which operators are supposed to provide some level of support as well as lodgings but the accommodation is not commissioned by the local authority. This part of the sector has become important for more commercially minded providers. My experience is that much of the non-commissioned accommodation is anything but supportive and has become a goldmine because of the ease with which owners receive Government money for vulnerable people in desperate need of accommodation.
In theory, supported housing refers to any scheme in which housing and support services are provided jointly to help people to live as independently as possible. The sector covers a range of accommodation, including group homes, hostels, refuges and sheltered housing. Much of the accommodation is excellent and those providers should be applauded, but it can be supplied by a wide variety of people and not all are as reputable as we might hope.
In their report “Exempt from Responsibility?”, which was published last November, the Spring Housing Association, the Housing and Communities Research Group and Commonweal Housing examined the use of exempt accommodation in Birmingham. They concluded that there are thousands currently living in non-commissioned exempt environments that are potentially unsafe, unsuitable and not conducive to progression or growth. This provision is largely untracked and unmonitored, and there are more than 11,000 vulnerable people living in this kind of accommodation in Birmingham. There are virtually no standards beyond the most basic: it is supposed to be fit for human habitation, have no hazards and comply with relevant building-maintenance legislation, but there seems to be nothing covering the size of rooms, kitchen and toilet facilities, restrictions on numbers or the suitability of owners or managers. That means that the same property can have a mix of tenants that might include youngsters from care, people with mental health difficulties, those released from prison and victims of domestic abuse and their children.
Not only do we find mixes of tenants in a single property, but there is nothing to prevent several such properties from being developed on the same street. These properties are often associated with complaints about antisocial behaviour and drug use, with local residents on the receiving end of abuse and intimidation. I have been contacted by neighbours who have been threatened by occupants of such properties and by vulnerable occupants who felt threatened by other tenants. It can often be difficult to identify the owner or managers, and on occasions when matters are reported to the police or the local authority, ownership can mysteriously change hands.
The tenants are given no say over the choice of residence. These are usually vulnerable people who are desperate for a place to stay, which means they can end up in highly unsuitable accommodation. In one situation, a pregnant woman and her young son were housed with several men who frequently harassed her. On one occasion, she had to barricade herself in her room while my office called the police.
The “Exempt from Responsibility?” report says that residents of exempt accommodation described
“feelings of ‘entrapment’ in financial instability; exclusion from decision-making processes”
in those properties and a total
“lack of control over where, and with whom, they are housed.”
One resident described an appalling lack of upkeep and care:
“It was dirty, filthy, rats and allsorts. Really dangerous. Never saw a staff member again after I got the keys.”
I am aware of one establishment where the supervisor appears to double as a taxi driver, regularly performing his taxi job when presumably he should be supervising at the accommodation.
The police are not consulted when a property is converted with the intention of providing exempt accommodation. They, like the residents, become aware as problems emerge.
The research to which I referred concluded that there is an accountability deficit and advised strengthening the criteria in terms of payment of housing benefit or universal credit rent to such providers. It also suggested that the Regulator of Social Housing might need new powers. We certainly need a clearer definition of what constitutes adequate support when it comes to supported accommodation and there must be greater transparency in identifying those profiting from such accommodation.
I understand the Government’s anxiety about regulation, but they should consider a stronger framework for consumers and better protections across the exempt accommodation sector. Providers should be subject to routine monitoring, with close attention paid to complaints from tenants and neighbours. Any property intended for such use should be subject to a background planning check to ensure that it is safe and suitable for such purposes, with a specified number of occupants, and that there is no history of breaches of planning law or unapproved extensions or building work. When the intention is specifically to convert a property for such use, that should be subject to a planning application and not allowed under permitted development rules. Approval should be based on the nature and safety of the conversion, adequacy of facilities and suitability for particular client groups.
We need to be clear about who is responsible for managing and supervising such accommodation as well as who owns it. Both should be subject to fit and proper person checks. Those minimum changes might go some way to raising the quality and safety of what has become an extremely problematic part of the accommodation market.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Steve McCabe, Jack Dromey, Kerry McCarthy, Dame Diana Johnson, Jim Shannon, Ms Karen Buck, Mr Clive Betts, Gary Sambrook, Shabana Mahmood, Rachel Hopkins, Daisy Cooper and Ian Levypresented the Bill.
Steve McCabe accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 214).

Exiting the European Union (Energy Conservation)

Kwasi Kwarteng: I beg to move,
That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
In recent years, the EU has introduced, through the ecodesign directive and the energy-labelling framework regulation a suite of product-specific regulations. Ecodesign regulations are all about minimising the cost and environmental impact of products used in homes and businesses by setting minimum energy performance standards. Energy labelling regulations provide consumers with information about a given product’s energy performance to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. In 2020, those policies will save households approximately £100 on their annual energy bills, and they will also lead to greenhouse gas emissions savings of 8 million tonnes of CO2 while driving innovation and competitiveness in business.
The aims of the statutory instrument are relatively straightforward. It amends retained EU law to ensure that the ecodesign and energy labelling regime remains operable in the UK once the transition period ends at the end of this year. The SI also implements the Northern Ireland protocol and unfettered access for ecodesign and energy-labelling policy.

Jim Shannon: I am concerned about the Northern Ireland protocol. We spent some 60 minutes on that in the urgent question to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Will the Minister clarify the issue of labelling on products from Northern Ireland and confirm that the protocol will not prevent my agrifood sector and other sectors from selling their products across the water east-west and west-east?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I think there are two different issues. Clearly, there are labelling issues, but the question that the hon. Gentleman is asking relates to market access. There is no reason, once the SI is on the statute book, that there should be any impediment to trade.
Amendments to retained EU ecodesign and energy-labelling legislation are required to ensure that that legislation can continue to operate legally within the UK from 1 January 2021. Amendments are also made to our 2019 EU exit SI to ensure that that continues to function as intended. New energy-labelling regulations for some products have come into force in the EU, and they require that suppliers of the relevant goods provide rescaled energy labels with their products from 1 November 2020. Retailers, however—this should be stressed—do not need to display those labels until 1 March next year. This SI ensures that the March 2021 requirements that would otherwise not become retained EU law still come into force in March, as intended.

Alan Brown: On retailers needing to display the new labels, does the retailer just swap one label for another, or is there some other process they need to go through come March?

Kwasi Kwarteng: There will be a requirement from March 2021 for retailers to display the requisite labels, but we do not envisage this as being a particularly difficult transition.
To ensure legislative implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—the statutory instrument amends our 2019 EU exit SI, and underlying legislation, so that certain UK-wide provisions are limited to Great Britain only. This will ensure that EU requirements continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the transition period, as per the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. The instrument also allows relevant qualifying Northern Ireland goods that comply with EU ecodesign and energy labelling regulations to be placed on the GB market without—this relates directly to his point—undergoing additional checks. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are defined in another instrument laid before Parliament by the Department.
Finally, the SI implements a decision to replace the EU flag on energy labels with the UK flag. Alongside this, we have removed EU language text from energy labels, and UK energy labels have been made available to businesses—free of charge, I would like to add—through an online service that supports compliance with this amendment.
These regulations are necessary to ensure the continued functioning of ecodesign and energy-labelling policy in the UK, while upholding our commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol, with the result that the UK, its consumers and our businesses can continue to realise the benefits of this policy. I commend the regulations to the House.

Alan Whitehead: I thank the Minister for giving us a careful and clear exposition of the position that was the case prior to this year and what will now be the case with the effective continuation of the provisions of the two EU directives that he mentioned—the EU ecodesign directive of 2009 and the EU energy-labelling framework regulations of 2017—in terms of their position as continuing defenders of consumer rights in the purchase and use of electrical goods and similar items that are covered by those directives. They deal, in the first instance, as he mentioned, with ensuring a progressive energy efficiency base for electrical products so that the least efficient are progressively withdrawn from sale as the provisions of the ecodesign directive comes in—that is, the requirement that goods are progressively designed in an increasingly energy-efficient and therefore energy-saving way.
The second directive, as the Minister mentioned, provides a labelling system, which I think hon. Members will be familiar with, that covers the energy efficiency rating of a particular product and therefore gives customers guidance on the products that they are purchasing and reinforces the ecodesign directive in terms of informing customer choices about what they are purchasing. Clearly, it is very important for the purposes of continuing the protections and support for the marketing and purchasing of those electrical items that what was in the directives is properly transposed and changed into UK law. As far as I can see, what has happened with both statutory instruments in this area is that the transposition has been fully made so that the provisions come properly into UK law.
Of course, that is not the full story and we need further elucidation on one or two things, whether or not we agree that the SI does its job of making sure that after 1 January—or in this case, March—the provisions are fully transferred and protection can continue. Slightly confusingly, this SI follows on from an SI with exactly the same name in 2019, which first transposed EU eco- design and energy labelling directives into equivalent standards in UK law. That SI transferred those arrangements on the basis that they would come into force in March 2020. However, with the extension of article 50 and the date of exit now being 1 January 2021, the SI might conceivably have needed updating to deal with the new date. Indeed, as it transpired, a number of amendments, changes and developments in those EU directives were made and came into force in the period between the original start date of the 2019 SI and the start date that is envisaged in the new SI we have before us.

Matt Rodda: I wish to take my hon. Friend’s point somewhat further forward. Does he agree that the public and many environmental organisations are deeply concerned, in exactly the way that he is pointing out, about the slippage and the way that the Government, through sleight of hand, are watering down very important EU environmental regulations?

Alan Whitehead: I agree that the public are concerned about that, and we in this House should be concerned about it, because in a number of instances we can see that the period between the lapsing of the EU regulation and its replacement by UK-based provisions has been used, either accidentally or purposefully, to lose some of the protections in transition. Part of our job today is to make sure that what was there for our protection prior to EU exit remains there and continues for future purposes. On this occasion, I think—this SI is 118 pages long, so it is quite a read—

Alan Brown: It is 116 pages.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Member quite rightly corrects me; it is substantially shorter than I thought.
The provisions appear to be consistent with what was there before and what is there for the future, but that does not cover all the issues, important though it is that we get that right. It was not just a question of checking that the original SI had done the job of making the transition safely into UK law. There was a period during which we were effectively bound to EU law, and a number of changes took place that were to be implemented during that period between the passing of the first SI and this SI being introduced. This SI therefore had to do a number of additional things, to incorporate those changes into UK law for future purposes.
In so doing, a number of issues have arisen, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol comes into question as far as those changes are concerned, as well as how Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be incorporated into the changes for exit on 1 January. The two things that have happened in the intervening period seem to throw up some difficulties, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on them.
The first is that the question of the status of the regulations has arisen as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, because Northern Ireland will now continue  to be in the EU regulatory system for the purposes of the two directives and will continue to eco-label on EU badging. That appears to present a problem for the marketing of Northern Ireland-manufactured products in Great Britain. In the SI, those products have effectively been given leave to market in GB on EU labelling and efficiency bases, but with a clear marking of their origin, which is tracked into GB.
That issue may well have been resolved by this SI, but there also arises a problem the other way round. If goods are being marketed from Northern Ireland with EU eco-labelling on it and are subject to ecodesign regulations, it is important that those labels and the ecodesign standards are compatible within the UK. The UK Government have effectively provided an internal solution to that problem by ensuring that the new regulations on UK eco-labelling apply only to GB and not to Northern Ireland, and what comes in from Northern Ireland can be marketed in Great Britain without further additional labelling.
However, what about the marketing of Great Britain-manufactured and labelled goods into Northern Ireland? The SI mentions a possible solution to this, which I would like the Minister to comment on. It has been agreed that there should be a mark on the GB certification to allow those goods to be sold in Northern Ireland. I am not clear what that mark is, how it will be distinguished for the purpose of selling in Northern Ireland and how it will differentiate goods that are being sold from the EU in Northern Ireland, as opposed to being sold from Britain. That is particularly important because of goods from the Irish Republic.
As for the marketing of UK-manufactured goods in the EU, I expect that the UK will have to produce separate agreements on conforming to EU standards to market, and that the existence of a UK mark will not be sufficient to secure marketing arrangements. Can the Minister clarify that position and say whether the eco-labelling UK label will be sufficient for goods that are manufactured in the UK, but marketed in the EU, if those arrangements are in parallel? Would that be acceptable for marketing purposes, or will UK companies have to agree on an additional EU label, over and above the UK label, to secure those marketing opportunities? That is the first additional problem with which we must get to grips.
In addition, some of the changes in the directives issued between March and January are not due to be implemented until 2021. Although those measures should have passed into UK law between March and January, the UK Government opted not to include them in this SI, because they are not due to be implemented before we have left the EU. We may ask whether that is of any significance. Indeed, there is a question mark in my mind about whether or not it is significant, because one change that was made in the regulations prior to this period, and which therefore should have been implemented but will not come in until 2021, relates to lighting standards. It looks as if those who manufacture lighting products in Northern Ireland will have to apply further changes in lighting standards and eco-labelling in 2021, which will set Northern Ireland at odds with GB standards. As far as the UK is concerned, in Great Britain that element of EU law will not yet have been passed on at all, and it may or may not be in the future.
What plans does the Minister have subsequently to incorporate those changes into UK law, so that those standards will be the same? He will agree that this is not  an academic point. There could be divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain on those standards, and that might take us further away from the simple question of putting on a mark, or providing a way leave.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I assumed he was aware—although he might not be—that in a motion such as this, which has a 90-minute limit, even though there is currently no pressure from other Members who wish to speak on this specific item of business, it is unusual for the Minister or shadow Minister to take more than 15 minutes to make their point. The hon. Gentleman has taken significantly more than 15 minutes so far, and although he would be right to argue that plenty of that 90-minute slot is left, on behalf of Members who are waiting elsewhere to speak in the next and subsequent items of business, I should point out that there is a lot more business for the House to get through today. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would consider truncating his remarks.

Alan Whitehead: I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my defence, this is a particularly complicated statutory instrument and I have felt it necessary to try to lay it out in some detail to get to the heart of what we are trying to talk about. If I have taken rather longer than I might have done in that process, I am sorry, but I hope that I will be coming to the end of my remarks shortly.
Will the Minister set out what will be done about the lighting changes that have taken place in directives and how that can be reconciled with procedures in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? There is also no agreement yet, as I understand it, on access by Northern Ireland to the EU product database, which informs eco labelling and product standard activity. The UK is not supposed to have access to the database because it will be independent of the EU and will need to set up its own database in due course—or rather quickly I would have thought. However, if Northern Ireland is to continue to work on EU eco labelling criteria, it should have access to that database. Will the Minister tell us what is happening now about this apparent impasse?
You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will not oppose this statutory instrument this afternoon, but I do hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on some of the points that I have raised. I think that, at the end of this, he might perhaps agree with me that this is rather a mess, isn’t it?

Alan Brown: I presume from your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to try to push this to the full 90 minutes.

Eleanor Laing: Correct.

Alan Brown: I will do my best.
This sounds all very grand—"Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products”. I look forward to scrutinising and getting stuck into this legislation, but will it be about a cleaner, greener UK, or taking back control and leaving the EU? Well, no. There are actually 116 pages of legislation, nearly 100 pages of which are nice pictures  of labels. Rather than taking back control, this is all about putting a Union Jack over what was formerly the EU flag on the labels on our appliances, which we all recognise, that tell us how energy efficient they are. The explanatory notes, at 10 pages, are nearly as long as the text in the regulations, which, again, says it all.
Noting what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, about other important business coming later on, we have to ask: why is this legislation being debated in the main Chamber and not where SIs are usually done, which is in a Committee Room? It prompts the question of why the Government are bringing this legislation here anyway.
Will the Minister tell us whether a consultant was used to design these new labels and specifications included in the 100-odd pages, or was he able to do it in-house with civil servants? Did they come up with the new specification and the colour coding all by themselves, or did they have to go to someone external? Can he tell us what the advantage is of removing the EU language from the labels? Is that really necessary? In paragraphs 2.12, 2.15, 2.26 and 2.27 of the explanatory memorandum, reference is made to “fixing deficiencies” in retained legislation. Will the Minister confirm that no improvements or alterations have been made to coding and regulations other than, as has been already said, substituting references to EU legislation and EU bodies for references to UK bodies and adding a Union Jack to the labels, and that the measure just mirrors other regulations that have been incorporated, such as the power transformer amendment regulation? Does that mean there are no actual deficiencies in EU legislation to be fixed and that it is just about sorting UK legislation out before leaving the EU? If the Minister could confirm that, it would be good.
Can the Minister explain why there is just a one-year transition period for CE marking? As I tried to ask in my intervention earlier, for goods that arrive in the UK during that transition period but are not sold until later, when the regulations kick in for the new labels that must be displayed, will it just be a matter of the retailer swapping the label over to the new label without doing anything else, or will some other process have to be followed to provide certification?
Paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that stakeholders
“raised concerns about the limited timeframe being granted to implement the required”
changes. What has been done to help stakeholders with the timeframe, and what additional stakeholder engagement has taken place?
Paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum gives an estimate of the total cost to business under de minimis self-certification of £1.95 million. What is the total of all the various de minimis assessments that have come through the Minister’s Department? That £1.95 million cost itself is small, but if we keep adding up all these de minimis estimates, what is the estimated total cost to business of changes as a result of our leaving the EU?
Paragraph 2.25 of the explanatory memorandum gives details on compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol, which is good, but ironically, the UK Government seem to want to rip up that protocol, which was the whole point of the urgent question earlier today. Unfettered  access for goods in Northern Ireland—for goods coming from Ireland and the EU, and for getting GB goods into Northern Ireland—would seem to be a really good advantage for distributors in Northern Ireland. Does that give Northern Ireland distributors an advantage over their GB mainland counterparts in business overheads and the checks and scrutiny they need to do?
Going forward, if there is a divergence in standards between the EU and the UK, how will the declaration of conformity for goods coming in and out of Northern Ireland to GB be implemented and checked? What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with counterparts in Northern Ireland?
It seems to me that even this simple replacement of labelling and updating of references to standards to comply with the EU—to make UK law valid and compliant as we exit the EU—is being left to the last minute. How are we supposed to believe that the UK is ready and okay to handle a no-deal exit, which the Government say will cause no problems whatsoever to business and transactions going forward?
As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) asked, what is the reality for GB goods being exported to the EU on exit? What arrangements are in place so that, going forward, these GB regulations that are coming into place will be accepted by the EU once the UK is a third country? Have any discussions taken place? Are any agreements in place, or is this all at the mercy of whether we get a deal or no deal? We do not have long left for that to be sorted out.
Let me conclude by asking the Minister this. Given that he is introducing legislation today that swaps flags and changes references from EU legislation to UK legislation while possibly missing key export issues that we need to understand, is he not embarrassed to be doing that from the Dispatch Box rather than in a Committee Room?

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the Minister, I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for having pointed out what an interesting piece of legislation this is. Very rarely do we get a fully illustrated instrument like this before us. I have never understood energy labels, but I have a much better idea now than I ever had before. I hope that many people will go to the Vote Office and pick up this draft statutory instrument.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted that you appreciate the various illustrations in the legislation, and I am delighted, too, that you have learned a great deal about energy labelling.
I shall sum up very succinctly, because I fully understand the pressures on time and the fact that people want to move on to subsequent debates. I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for their contributions. I will address two or three of their points as succinctly but as clearly as I can.
In relation to the implementation period—the transition period, as we call it now—it was always the case that we had an obligation to enshrine in UK law measures that were introduced by the EU in the course of the transition period, but once we had left the EU, there was no such  obligation. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is therefore quite right to say that, as per the Northern Ireland protocol, there could in theory be some divergence. However, if that happens, we can keep on an equal basis, mirroring what goes on in Northern Ireland at a subsequent date after we have left the EU. That is possible, and I am not going to prejudge the outcome of that.
With respect to marketing, in the provision in the statutory instrument, there is a period of a year where EU goods can be marketed in this country. As the hon. Gentleman said, leaving the transition period will not affect the marketing of goods from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, nor should it affect the marketing of goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, but there will be a marker. I cannot remember its exact design off the top of my head, but I will certainly come back to him on that question.
As to why this debate is happening on the Floor of the House and not in a Committee Room, that is clearly an issue for the business managers of the House. I am not in a position to fully answer that question, I am afraid, but I reiterate our commitment to the standards, ecodesign and energy labelling regime that has helped us to significantly reduce energy bills and increase emissions savings. This will make a massive contribution to our carbon reduction commitments in future. I think Members of this House will be very pleased to know that our standards have led the EU over the past few years: no country in the EU has decarbonised as readily as we have done since 1990. I notice that our German colleagues are still committed to the mining of coal until 2038, and I am pleased to say that we are taking coal off the power generation grid by 2024. I make that point not as an idle boast, but to say that we are, and have been, leaders of the EU, and with COP26 we will continue to provide leadership on the decarbonisation agenda.
This draft instrument will allow businesses in Northern Ireland to trade smoothly with Britain. It will allow Northern Irish products to circulate without any hindrance on the GB market, and it will also preserve the highest standards within businesses in this country.

Alan Whitehead: rose—

Kwasi Kwarteng: I therefore commend these regulations to the House.

Alan Whitehead: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw attention to my having asked the Minister to give way.

Eleanor Laing: I think the Minister has concluded, so the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity has, I am afraid, passed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: Between this item of business and the next, I ought to briefly suspend the House in order that the Dispatch Box and so on can be sanitised. I suspend the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Exiting the European Union (Building and Buildings)

Christopher Pincher: I beg to move,
That the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 15 October this year. They were debated and supported in the other place on 10 November. They are part of the Government’s programme to update European Union exit legislation to reflect the fact that we are now leaving the transition period under the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol.
The regulations will amend existing construction products regulations in the United Kingdom using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They will ensure that EU construction products legislation continues to apply in Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol. They will also amend the remainder of the United Kingdom regime so that it applies to Great Britain only.
It is probably worth my taking a few moments to remind the House of some of the background. The EU construction products regulation, or CPR, is directly applicable in all EU member states and has applied across the United Kingdom since 2011. It seeks to remove technical barriers to the trade in construction products in the European single market.
The CPR harmonises the methods of assessment and testing, the means of declaration of poor performance, and the system of conformity assessment of construction products. It does not harmonise national building regulations. Individual member states remain responsible for safety, environmental, energy and other requirements applicable to construction works. Where an EU harmonised standard exists for a product, the CPR places an obligation on manufacturers, distributors and importers of that product when it is placed on the market. That includes a stipulation that the product must have been accompanied by a declaration of performance and affixed with a CE mark. This helps provide reliable information to industry and consumers about the performance of the product.

Jim Shannon: One of the concerns I have in relation to this statutory instrument is the north-south movement of products for the construction sector, such as cement moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, and vice versa. There is also the movement of wood from the Republic of Ireland and across from Scotland and the mainland. Can the Minister confirm that a full consultation process has taken place with all those in the sector, and that they fully believe this will enable the construction sector to continue as it is? I say that because I believe the construction sector is able to lift the economy come 1 January next year, and the opportunity must be there. It should not be inhibited in any way.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland.
The amendments we are debating today are of a technical nature, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the objective of these measures to inhibit in any way the transfer of goods between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland or the transfer of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We want unfettered access to our mainland markets to continue, of course, for businesses and services in Northern Ireland. I will address those points in more detail in my remarks.
At the end of the transition period, the CPR becomes retained EU law and will form part of the United Kingdom’s legal system. We made the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations in March 2019 to ensure its provisions will have practical application in the United Kingdom. That was, of course, before we had a withdrawal agreement or a Northern Ireland protocol.
Those 2019 regulations include the introduction of United Kingdom-wide provisions, such as the UKCA mark and UK-designated standards, in preparation for a no-deal Brexit but, of course, we have now left the European Union with a withdrawal agreement and a Northern Ireland protocol.
Without the amendments made by this instrument, the 2019 regulations would not be compliant with the Northern Ireland protocol, as they would have application to the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Regulators would lack powers to enforce EU regulations in Northern Ireland, and manufacturers would not be able to test their products in the United Kingdom and affix the UKNI indication to place the product in the market.
The policy intent of these regulations is to keep the same requirements set out in the 2019 regulations in Great Britain but to introduce a Northern Ireland regime that complies with the Northern Ireland protocol. They do not change the key CPR requirements currently in place. The same standards will apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland immediately after 31 December, as they did before the transition period, and products that meet Northern Ireland CPR requirements will have unfettered access to the market of Great Britain.
The effect of these regulations can be considered in three parts. First, they will amend the 2019 regulations so that current United Kingdom-wide provisions, such as UKCA marking and UK-designated standards, will become Great Britain-only provisions at the end of the transition period. A further effect of this territorial amendment is that it will ensure that EU construction products law will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, in line with the Northern Ireland protocol. As United Kingdom-designated standards will be identical to EU harmonised standards at the end of the transition period, there will be no change for businesses placing goods on the market in terms of the standards that must be met.

Alan Brown: I understand what the Minister is saying about standards still being the same when we leave the EU, but if we leave without a deal the UK will be a third country. What will that mean for the export to the EU of construction goods manufactured in the UK? Will a reciprocal arrangement have to be put in place to recognise those goods, so that they will not have to undergo additional checks and certification in the EU?

Christopher Pincher: We want unfettered access to the EU markets, and we want the same for them. That is why we are attempting to implement a trade deal. The standards between the United Kingdom and the European Union will remain harmonised, unless or until we introduce further regulations. Such regulations or changes will be available to debate, and I look forward to that opportunity.
Secondly, the regulations make provision for conformity assessment bodies established in the United Kingdom. They enable UK-approved bodies to continue testing against EU harmonised standards for the Northern Ireland market, and they introduce, as I have said, a new UK(NI) indication, as required under the protocol. Where the UK-approved body undertakes the conformity assessment activities required under an EU standard, the manufacturer must affix the CE marking together with the new UK(NI) indication. These regulations ensure that these CE plus UK(NI)-marked construction products will be recognised in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. The details of the UK(NI) indication will be established under a separate instrument, led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and those regulations were debated in the House on 16 November.
Thirdly, these regulations amend existing UK-wide enforcement provisions so that they apply in Great Britain and restate EU CPR enforcement provisions in respect of Northern Ireland. For Great Britain, the regulations amend the enforcement rules to reflect that the CE marking on its own and the CE marking together with UK(NI) indicators will be recognised in Great Britain. For Northern Ireland, the regulations provide an enforcement regime in relation to the EU construction products law and the new UK(NI) indication.
Finally, the regulations make a small number of technical changes to correct deficiencies in the 2019 regulations arising from leaving the EU with the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol.
To conclude, these regulations serve a very specific purpose: to amend the 2019 regulations to ensure that there is a functioning legislative and regulatory regime in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is necessary in response to the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol that the United Kingdom and the EU agreed in January 2020. Our overall approach to these amendments is entirely concurrent with both the policy and the legal intent of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and enacts the policy that the Government set out in guidance to the industry in September.
I apologise for the detailed technicalities in these amendments, which are, effectively, amendments to amendments, but I hope that Members across the House will join me in supporting them. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mike Amesbury: I thank the Minister for opening the debate, and I understand the technical nature of taking forward the regulations. As the Minister will know, I have a great deal of interest in ensuring that products used in the construction of our buildings reach the highest standards and are used in the appropriate way. The Minister is well versed in products such as aluminium composite material and high-pressure laminate insulation, and in the problems  that we have in our high-rise buildings—not only those of 18-plus metres, but those of 11-plus metres—and those that certainly are risky that are cladded and have vulnerable people living in them, but this debate is not about that.
These regulations are important for ensuring that we prepare for the next phase of our relationship with the European Union. As someone who voted remain and campaigned for remain, I find it regrettable, but it is the reality, and now it is time to get on with it. It is not quite oven-ready, but that is another debate. As such, the Minister will be pleased to know that the Opposition will not be objecting to the regulations, but I want to raise with him a number of points that require clarification.
No impact assessment has been released with the legislation, so I would be interested to listen to the Minister’s reply in that regard. Immediately following the end of the transition period, UK designated standards will be identical to those under the European Union regime, but will that always be the case? If the Government are planning to make any changes, and should the regimes diverge, it is not hard to envisage real and material difficulties for UK manufacturers and distributors acting in Northern Ireland. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply on that matter. Will he give us such points of clarification, but also, very importantly, of reassurance? Does the Minister see any changes on the horizon, and what impacts could those changes have?
Before this debate, the Construction Products Association wrote to me, as I am sure it has written to the Minister and the Department. It raised some concerns about the types of testing that can be undertaken currently by UK notified bodies and therefore are currently done by a European Union notified body. It wants clarity about what the situation will be in January. I believe the CPA has already brought up these concerns, which bring into question whether some products made in the UK will be allowed for sale on the UK market post Brexit. We are at a very late stage of the process, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave some detail in responding to the House on those concerns.
I want to echo my colleagues in the other place—the Lords—in asking for the detail contained in the enforcement provisions. I understand this will work in a very similar way, and again I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on that. Echoing the comments from hon. Members in the Chamber today, what will the implications be for the construction industry and those involved in producing these products to high and world-class standards in the event of a no-deal Brexit, which is potentially a few weeks away. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Alan Brown: I will be brief, because to be honest I do not understand why this SI is being debated in the main Chamber and has not been tucked away in a Committee Room as it should have been.
In a former life I worked as a civil engineer, so I was familiar with working with British Standards and then the changeover to Eurocodes. The harmonisation of products was welcome: it gave a wider choice and helped to bring down the cost of construction projects and make them more efficient, in the UK and throughout the EU. That was a big advantage of that harmonisation. I suggest to the Minister that the UK should not be in a rush to diverge, because there are unintended consequences  from diverging for no real reason. Will the Minister explain how any proposed changes in legislation will be handled? How will he judge the impact of the benefits of making changes versus the possible disadvantages of diverging from an EU-wide coding scheme?
The Minister stated earlier that he hopes to get a trade deal; how detailed are the trade deal discussions on matters such as this? It is really important that after we leave the EU, EU products can still come into the UK to keep building projects going and that UK manufacturers are able to export their goods to the EU uninterrupted and uninhibited. Otherwise, there will obviously be an economic cost to the UK. How detailed are the proposals in the current trade deal discussions?
We need to face reality, because the Minister’s Prime Minister says that we can leave the EU without a deal and that that will not cause any problem. If we leave the EU without a deal, what will that mean for construction products that are either exported from the UK into the EU or, vice versa, imported into the UK from the EU? As I say, those imports are vital to keep our construction projects going—to keep houses being built and infra- structure upgrades going. The UK Government are planning a big infrastructure investment, which in itself is to be welcomed—if we get a cleaner, greener UK, that is to be welcomed—but it will rely on construction products coming from the EU. What will be the real impact if there is no deal and the UK is operating as a third country? I would be interested to hear the Minister clear that up. With those brief remarks, I conclude.

Matt Rodda: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).
I rise to speak in this debate because of the importance of building safety in my constituency—as in many parts of the country—following the dreadful disaster at Grenfell. We have a number of tall blocks, many of which are unfortunately still covered in dangerous cladding, including ACM cladding, cladding made from other materials and, indeed, dangerous wooden cladding. Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service has uncovered a series of problems in Reading and other Berkshire towns, and there is a great deal of concern from local residents about these matters. I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on the nature of the UK standards and the fact that they are separate, although they interconnect with the European ones. I wish to reiterate residents’ concerns and ask some questions, in a helpful way, to try to elicit a response that might reassure local people.
First, let me outline the scale of the issue in our community, because at first sight it might not be obvious that in a medium-sized town thousands and thousands of people are affected by this building-safety scandal. It affects not only the people who live in taller blocks, nearly 10 of which are affected in Reading. They are all either privately owned or have a mixture of different forms of ownership, but they are not council-owned—the council blocks are safe. These privately owned blocks have been clad dangerously and are affected by a series of other matters, such as a dangerous car park ventilation that could lead to fires on the side of buildings.
There is a range of issues and a great deal of concern among thousands and thousands of residents. In fact, that is something of an understatement, because another  group of residents might also be affected, and the level of risk in their buildings is unclear. I am talking about people who live in lower-rise blocks of flats and houses of multiple occupation. The issues are similar: many have issues with potentially dangerous cladding; others have issues with fire safety doors or just the very fact that a block has multiple occupation and requires greater scrutiny of the fire safety messages, briefing and information provided to residents.
In a town the size of the one I represent—and its suburbs—a substantial number of people live in medium-sized accommodation of three to six storeys, and however technical these matters may be, all those people are affected deeply by changes to building safety.

Alan Brown: I was hesitant to interrupt the hon. Member’s flow because this matter is obviously important for him and his constituents. Is the real issue the products that are on the market or governance in terms of building control, inspection and regulation?

Matt Rodda: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I believe it may be both of those as well as the lack of resource for the fire service, which sadly has been cut significantly since 2010. There are, therefore, a number of significant issues for us as parliamentarians. I seek the Minister’s reassurance in particular on, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and my hon. (Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) mentioned, what happens as we move out of the scope of EU regulations and into a UK-based regime covering Great Britain while there will be continuation of EU measures in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of scope for confusion.

Mike Amesbury: Of course, many of the products, whether ACM, HPL or insulation, have been tested, though some of those tests have been questionable. As my hon. Friend rightly says, any divergence beyond the arrangements that we have now for transition out of the EU—of course, we do not have a trade deal—may have a further impact, and building safety issues go much broader than cladding, whether ACM or HPL, affecting thousands of buildings and hundreds of thousands of people.
Of course, 1.5 million people are now trapped in flats that largely have a zero rating for a mortgage. They also have to pay additional costs for waking watch, which in some cases can be thousands of pounds a month. Going forward, measures in the building safety Bill have the potential to put even more charges on leaseholders. Does my hon. Friend concur that, beyond Reading, this is a national scandal—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am sorry but this intervention is way too long. Has the hon. Member got the gist of the point?

Matt Rodda: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. He is right that this is a national scandal. I seek to give one example of one constituency and to represent local people. It is utterly abhorrent that millions of people in the United Kingdom face these dreadful problems and  are living with the nightmare of an unsafe flat that they cannot sell or leave. It is dreadful that they are living through this utter nightmare. I call on the Government to step up their action and address this with far greater urgency. I find it staggering that, three years after Grenfell, it is still an issue on the scale that it is and that the Government are only now beginning to address it. I ask the Minister respectfully to explain—perhaps in front of the House, or he could write to me—how the Government will deal with the risk of confusion about regulation and the potential watering down of the current standards once we are no longer in the EU regime.

Christopher Pincher: We have had an interesting debate on what otherwise might be described as dry and technical matters, though in saying that I do not wish in any way to diminish or undermine the seriousness of the issues at hand, some of which I will address in my remarks. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.
We are seeking a positive future trading relationship with the European Union that we hope will include a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment, supporting United Kingdom approved bodies and construction manufacturers alike. These regulations will come into force at the end of the transition period—in either scenario—and further legislation will be laid to implement such a trade agreement. The reason for these amendments is not a deal on free trade with the European Union, nor because we are attempting to diverge from the present harmonised rules on construction standards. It is simply that the present provisions, which will come into force at the end of the transition period, were made before the withdrawal agreement was agreed and before the Northern Ireland protocol was signed, and we need to amend them in the light of those—I think we would all agree—welcome advances.
I will address some of the points raised by hon. Members across the Chamber. With respect to building safety, I will not attempt to drain the debates that we have had across the Dispatch Box and around the Chamber over several weeks about the importance of dealing quickly with ACM and non-ACM clad buildings. As the House knows, the Government have put aside £1.6 billion for that purpose, and we keep the situation under review. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards for construction products that are put on the market. Let me say to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), that the Building Safety Bill, which has been published in draft and will be brought forward as soon as possible, will implement the recommendations of the Hackitt review. We want to use that further to strengthen the regulatory oversight of construction products at a national level. This is not a race to the bottom; it is very much a race to the top in terms of standards.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) also raised the question of where the CE designation will apply. The reason that we are transposing it into British law—Great Britain—is to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to prepare for any future changes in order to minimise business disruption. We are introducing the UK(NI) designation to ensure that any goods sold into Northern Ireland meet European  Union CPR designated standards. Again, we want to ensure that the CE designation continues for a period of time. Will future regulations diverge? Well, that is a matter for the Government of the day. Any changes to our regulations will be debated in this place and the other place in the usual way, and the House will come to a conclusion. Should the European Union wish to change its designations, that is a matter for it. In those circumstances, the European Union would certainly have to comply with UK-wide designations, with the exception of the UK(NI) designation, which of course applies to Northern Ireland qualifying goods.

Mike Amesbury: What assurance can the Minister give the House that this divergence will not see a race to the bottom? We have talked about current standards, and it has been mentioned that there have been some major issues, including products that have been tested, and which have then been used either as fire breaks or to encase buildings. It has got to be a race to the top, rather than to the bottom. What assurances can the Minister provide?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have always been at the forefront of good design and product safety, and I hope that nobody in the House will assume that somehow, because they are EU regulations, those regulations must ineluctably be better than our own. We will make sure that we have regulations that are suitable for our markets. We will make sure that we have really good regulations and that, as we leave the transition period, we maintain EU regulations, which are being incorporated, as I have said, into British law.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about enforcement. One reason why we need to introduce the amendments to amendments is to make sure that local authorities, which are usually responsible for the enforcement of such regulations, have the wherewithal in England, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland to enforce the necessary regulations, whether they are   the CE regulations that we are transposing in Great Britain, future regulations that we might apply or the construction products regulations that will continue to pertain in Northern Ireland. The enforcement regulations —I think Lord Blunkett asked about this in the other place, and my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh replied—will be maintained as a result of these amendments.
What will happen in future? It is for my noble Friend Lord Frost and his negotiating team to win a great trade deal for the United Kingdom, and that is what he is endeavouring to do. I hope, given that the amount of trade in construction products is definitely in the European Union’s favour—something like £10.8 billion-worth of trade, compared with £4 billion and a bit the other way—it is in its interest to reach a good trade deal with the United Kingdom, to ensure that that trade continues to flow.
The Government believe that the regulations that we have laid before the House are needed to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for construction products at the end of the transition period and that it is, as I have said, in line with commitments set out in the all-important Northern Ireland protocol. I trust that I have answered all—or nearly all—the questions that have been put to me by Members in all parts of the House. If not, I am happy to write to them. With that, I conclude and commend the draft amendments to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.

Nigel Evans: Order. We are going to suspend for three minutes so that the Dispatch Boxes can be sanitised.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19

Jo Churchill: I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19.
Yesterday, there was an increase of 19,609 cases of coronavirus in the UK, and sadly we recorded 529 deaths. I am sure I speak for everyone when I say that our sympathies and prayers are with each and every family. It is a stark reminder, if we needed one, that we still have a long way to go in beating this disease and seeing our country thrive again.
I know that Members across the House will join me in wishing those who are currently unwell a speedy recovery and thanking all the staff across health and social care and key workers for all they do, but I would also like to mention one or two who do not always get a mention: those working in community health, including our health visitors and our pharmacists, and many of the volunteers who keep many of the shows on the road.
As the Office for National Statistics report on loneliness earlier today showed, these changes are taking a toll on our lives. They are taking a toll on individuals, families and businesses, so the news this week of further successful vaccine trials with Moderna and today’s update from Pfizer have given rise to the very real prospect of an effective vaccine in the near future. While I share that sense of hope with many, we still have some way to go, and we must never lose sight of the challenges that we face at the moment. A vaccine still has to go through a regulatory process, but it is right that the planning of the huge logistical exercise of a vaccine roll-out led by the NHS is now very much under way. Throughout this pandemic we have had to learn, and each week brings further understanding.
As more information continues to emerge on the risks of long covid, for example, we are reminded how this virus can remain a threat. I am sure hon. and right hon. Members will be pleased to hear that the NHS will have a network of 40 long covid clinics in place before the end of this month, bringing together doctors, nurses, therapists and other NHS staff to help those patients suffering from the lasting effects of this virus. That is an example of how our response to the virus has to continue to evolve and strengthen to protect staff, patients and the public, moving with the science as we learn more.
It is hard to overstate how little was known about the virus at the start of the year. We have done many things for the first time, and the learning curve has definitely been a steep one, but looking back, we have come a long way through this difficult year. We have always sought to base decisions on evidence, data and scientific advice, and we have been willing to reflect and adapt as we go. From repatriating individuals from Wuhan in the early days of the pandemic, we have constantly faced and met enormous challenges. In the words of General Sir Nick Carter back in April, distributing personal protective equipment, for example, was
“the single greatest logistical challenge”
in his 40 years of service. However, with others helping, such as the Army, we built those supply chains and responded to demand. In some areas, demand went up by 17,000% for eye protection, for example, and by approximately 4,700% for masks. So far, we have distributed  more than 4.9 billion items of personal protective equipment to the frontline, and today we have a four-month stockpile in hand across all nine key lines, with a further 32 billion items of PPE on order. We have regularly delivered to more than 58,000 health and care organisations. I would like to pay tribute to Lord Deighton and his team for their extraordinary efforts in building resilience into the supply chain, to enable us to be as confident as we are today.
I am clear that none of this would have been possible without the incredible collaboration we have seen between industry, social care providers, our NHS, the armed forces and others. Industry and individual businesses stepped up to meet the challenge. At the start of the pandemic, only 1% of PPE was manufactured here in the United Kingdom. By the end of the year, we will be manufacturing 70% of the amount of PPE we expect to use from December to March in all key areas bar gloves. This enormous national effort has put our country on a strong footing today and for years to come. Following the launch of the PPE strategy in September, we are looking at sustainability and initiating a UK production site for gloves.

Karin Smyth: I accept that it was an extraordinary time and that extraordinary measures needed to be taken, but as we have heard from the National Audit Office today, tried and tested processes and procedures were not used. Will the Minister say something about that report and why that was the case, why we had 11 ministerial directions by May and whether those lessons have been learnt by her Department and others that fell foul of the procurement procedures?

Jo Churchill: The NAO report to which the hon. Member refers highlights that we were acting with “extreme urgency” in a global market where demand exceeded supply. The report states that the situation in responding to the covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented, but that we
“secured unprecedented volumes of essential supplies necessary to protect front-line workers.”

Karin Smyth: Will the Minister give way again?

Jo Churchill: If the hon. Member will bear with me, I will continue.
The NAO report examined potential conflicts of interests involving Ministers and the awarding of contracts and found none. It states:
“we found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
The report recognises that there are robust processes in place for spending public money, to ensure that critical equipment got to where it needed to go as rapidly as possible while ensuring value for money. I welcome the report, because we can all learn.

Chris Bryant: I want to make a very different point, which is about how well prepared we were for this year and how prepared we would be if all this were to happen again. The truth is that we tend to run the NHS at 90% to 95% capacity, and it takes the requirement of only a tiny smidgen of increased capacity for the whole thing to fall over. I am particularly conscious  of that in relation to intensive care. We have had to cancel elective surgery just to keep intensive care going. If we had the same number of beds per head of population as France or Germany, we would not have had to do that. Another affected area is neuro-rehabilitation after brain injuries, which was already struggling and will even more so because covid clearly leads to some neuro-degenerative conditions.

Jo Churchill: The hon. Member is an incredible campaigner in the area of neural injuries. When elective procedures are stood down, those are clinical decisions. We have ensured that many can keep going in the second wave, but this must be done on a local level. There is surge capacity in the Nightingale hospitals, with an additional 2,000 beds, and we have the ventilator capacity that was built up during the first wave of the pandemic. I recognise what he says, but I do feel that these decisions have to be made locally by the clinicians who are involved in delivering the care.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Jo Churchill: I will give way briefly but then I would like to push on.

Chris Bryant: I am not having a go at the Minister; I am simply trying to ask a question for the country, in a way. For the future, we will have to have much more capacity in the NHS, won’t we? We will have to nearly double the amount of capacity we have in some areas, particularly in intensive care, in neuro-rehabilitation and, for that matter, in radiotherapy.

Jo Churchill: I will come on to the area of cancer, in particular. Strides have been made in different ways of treating virtually, so that fewer people go into the hospital setting, and so on. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about capacity, but that is why the Government have committed to building 40 new hospitals—because there is a need to ensure that sufficient capacity is available across the country for people.

Karin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Jo Churchill: I am going to push on a little bit and then I will give way again.
This enormous national effort has put our country on a strong footing for today and years to come. We are using the best of British ingenuity to help us to deliver in this area. Progress has also been seen in other areas. As the pandemic unfolded, the UK could not call on a major diagnostic industry. From a standing start of about 2,000 tests a day in March, our capacity is now over half a million tests per day. This matters, because it has often been said in this place that in order to beat the virus we need to draw on different parts of our armoury to help to get us through. Testing works. It helps to deny the virus the connections it needs to spread. Mass testing therefore offers us a chance to achieve that on a much bigger scale. We are making progress in city-wide testing in Liverpool. I thank Joe Anderson for his leadership in helping to deliver not only in testing but in other areas too. We are also rolling out a further localised approach to other areas with the help of directors of public health, among others, who know their local areas. Some 83 local authorities have now signed up to receive regular batches of lateral flow tests, which allow for a result to be seen in 15 minutes.
Further, I know that hon. Members will celebrate Monday’s announcement of two mega-labs coming on stream early next year—very high-throughput laboratories, one in the midlands and one in Scotland, adding a further capacity of some 600,000 tests per day. These are massive gains that we are achieving by embracing cutting-edge technology such as automation and robotics and harnessing the best of British industry and academia, meaning that we will not only be able to process more tests but that they can be processed quicker and at a lower cost. The mega-labs will be another powerful weapon in our defence against this deadly virus in order to get back to a more normal way of life, but more than that, they will form a permanent part of the country’s new diagnostic industry. They can help us to respond in the future and build further resilience.
I am excited at the potential for a new diagnostic industry to help to care and deliver across other disease types, not least cancer. Hon. Members will know that, informed in large part by my own experience, I was an advocate of improved cancer outcomes long before I came to this place or took on this role. Early diagnosis is the key to beating the disease, and with bold steps forward in diagnostics, I would like it to make it my mission—I am sure with many others across the House—that we seize new opportunities in cancer services so that covid-19 is not a derailer but an opportunity for a new phase in smarter, faster diagnostics.

Tim Farron: rose—

Jo Churchill: I would be happy to hear from the hon. Member, who champions radiotherapy.

Tim Farron: I very much appreciate the Minister’s work in this area. She will have seen that leading clinicians think it will take five years for us to catch up with the cancer backlog. Indeed, Cancer Research UK has recognised that there have been 35,000 avoidable deaths from cancer over this period. Only very recently, there was an awful figure in an article in The BMJ saying that there have been 60,000 lost life years as a consequence of cancer during this period. I absolutely acknowledge that progress is being made when it comes to diagnostics; I am less convinced that progress is being made when it comes to treatment. Will she confirm whether her Department is making an urgent bid for spending review funding for smart radiotherapy, for delivery at satellite sites and for digital technology, to ensure that we clear the backlog, save lives and catch up with cancer?

Jo Churchill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he will know, the comprehensive spending review will deliver forth, and bids have been put in across the piece. I am sure he will understand that it is not my place to answer, as those decisions are still being made.
We know that some of these figures relate to specific challenges. For example, endoscopy is still a particular challenge because of the aerosol-generating procedure. That is why I was really pleased that Cally Palmer, Professor Peter Johnson and other stakeholders, including charities, have formed the cancer recovery taskforce. They will be laying out a national plan for how we beat this, and also how we optimise the use of new treatment paths. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are using  fewer radiotherapy treatments, or fractions, so that people do not have to attend so much. There is also oral chemotherapy and many other advances that need building in, to ensure that patients get timely and quick treatment.
As the first wave subsided, the NHS rose to the challenge of restoring cancer services: it kept focus and did some amazing reconfiguration work around cancer hubs and rapid diagnostic centres. I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is a way to go, but I am aware of how much each day spent waiting for a diagnosis, for treatment or for an answer suspends time and feels like a year for the individual. We will continue to ensure that cancer services are prioritised and we thank those who work in the cancer workforce for everything they are doing.
In September, slightly over 86% saw a cancer specialist within two weeks of a referral from a GP, and 94.5% had treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat. I would really urge people who are worried about cancer or any other major issue, “Please, don’t leave it. Help us to help you.” It is always challenging, and many people have said to me that they do not want to overload the system, but doctors are keen to help.
A vaccine will perhaps be our most potent weapon, once we know that it is safe and effective. However, we do not yet have a vaccine. I must be very clear on that point. We are not quite there yet—we must ensure that we stick to hands, face, space and ventilate our environments by opening windows for short bursts—but progress on this front is encouraging. Last week, we heard about phase 3 trials from Pfizer and BioNTech, stating that their vaccine was more than 90% effective in preventing covid. Today, further data indicates that the vaccine is now thought to be around 94% efficacious for those who are 65-plus, with good data on many other groups. As I say, we are constantly learning. Earlier this week, preliminary trial data from Moderna suggested that its vaccine had an effectiveness of 94.5%. Additionally, we have had the start of Janssen’s phase 3 trials in the UK this week, and we will hopefully have more phase 3 trials reported in the next few weeks.
This is all very positive, but of course, our regulator will not approve any vaccine until it is proven to be clinically safe and effective, and the way to get there is via trials. On that note, I would like to give a shout-out to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who is taking part in the trial, and my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), who is also doing so. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) have registered, although I do not know whether they are part of it. I am sure several other Members across the House have also stepped up.
We have already struck commercial deals to secure access 355 million doses of seven vaccines, and the Department is working at pace with the NHS to ensure that we will be ready to roll out any that are proven safe and effective immediately. That will be a massive undertaking, and I thank everyone for their hard work thus far.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chair yesterday, but I somewhat embarrassed myself by perhaps displaying more of the parent in me than the Minister. This country’s journey in beating the pandemic, however, has been a  little like watching one’s child grow: it is a huge undertaking, it comes without a manual, we are proud of the successes and, when things are trying, we attempt to learn and move on—but the work is never done. Over the past year, so many parts of our country have risen to meet an incredible set of challenges; challenges they are facing every day. Only by ensuring that we have those different lines of defence, and by pulling together in local, regional, national and international ways will we protect those on the frontline and allow family and business life to resume and get back to a different, albeit more normal way of life.

Nigel Evans: As Members will see from the call list, quite a number of people wish to participate in this debate. We will start all non-Front-Bench contributions at six minutes, although clearly that limit might be reduced later on depending on how many interventions there are.

Alex Norris: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate for the Opposition. It is an important debate, though a solemn one: 589 deaths of our countrymen and countrywomen were reported yesterday, having perished from this virus. The total official number of deaths from covid is now more than 50,000, but the real figure is likely to be much higher. Those are big numbers, but behind each number is a person and a grieving family. All our thoughts are with them.
It is important and appreciated that the Government continue to give Government time in this place for the consideration of covid. Often—we understand this—the Government need to act swiftly to tackle the virus, but it is crucial that we get parliamentary opportunities to scrutinise their actions. I hope that we find the Government in listening mode, because we could do much to improve the current response.
In that spirit, I turn first to test and trace. Test and trace is important for two reasons: first, it is our best weapon to break the chain of transmission, and secondly, it is the part of the process that the Government have the greatest control over. Of course, the behaviour of the public is paramount, and it is critical that we guide them as best we can, but eventually it becomes a matter of personal responsibility. Test and trace, however, we have direct control of—we have control over the implementation and the commissioning.
Let us start with the good news. We recognise and welcome the overall volume of capacity developed by the Government, which the Minister talked about. That was done from scratch, and it is a very good thing indeed. However, that is as far as the good news goes, because the rest of the system is simply not delivering.
I was concerned that the Minister talked about testing but did not talk about tracing or isolation, because the system is failing, not on my terms or on political barriers put up by me or my colleagues, but on the Government’s own terms. The Prime Minister promised test results within 24 hours by the end of June. The current figure is 37.6%. That is a failure on the Government’s own terms. I hope that the Postmaster General will say when the 100% target will be reached.
On tracing, the Government say that of those with the virus, 80% of their close contacts must be reached for the system to be effective. Last week, it was 60%.  It has never been at 80%; it has bumped along, frankly, in the 50s and 60s throughout. For last week, that represents 126,000 people who ought to have self-isolated but did not, simply because they did not know that they were supposed to. Each of them is walking around unaware, working as usual, living as allowed by regulations, and in close contact with goodness knows how many people. Again, that is a failure on the Government’s own terms. Tomorrow, we will get the latest weekly figures. Do we expect performance to have reached that 80%? I do not. I raise this issue every day, whether in the Chamber, online, in the media or, frankly, to anyone who will listen. That is because the failure of the system is the root of our loss of control of this virus.
If this debate follows the patterns of previous ones, we will hear contributions from Government Back Benchers critical of the symptoms of that loss of control—damage to the economy, delayed or cancelled healthcare, restricted civil liberties. Those are all exceptionally important symptoms, but I cannot understand why we do not hear greater concerned scrutiny of the cause of the problems, which is the failing system. I hope that those Members will join us in pressing the Government to do better, not because of the politics—on this occasion, I could not care less about that, frankly—but because this is a hole beneath the water line when it comes to tackling the virus. Nothing will truly get better until this gets better.
The final weak link in the chain is about isolation. Even if all elements of the system over which the Government have direct control work flawlessly, the enterprise will fail if the person at the end of the process does not isolate when supposed to. The Prime Minister has bemoaned that issue previously, which I suspect is part of his attempts to shift the blame on to other people—'twas ever thus. In reality, however, even before the pandemic, too many people were just getting by on low wages and insecure work. People were in work but in poverty, and forced, hour by hour, to earn that poverty. Now they are being told to forego even that income in favour of sick pay. That might be the right thing to do to beat covid-19, but people do not know how to isolate and feed their family at the same time.
The Health and Social Care Secretary himself said that he could not live off statutory sick pay, and it took seven months until the £500 stipend came in. The Prime Minister thought that the stipend was weekly—it is not, and it is still not enough. Until we change the situation so that those who have least in our country, and who often work in frontline jobs where they are more likely to contract the virus, do not have to choose between the national effort and financial reality for their family, we will not get people isolating in the numbers we need.

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point, and the 60-something-per cent. success rate of the national system is deeply regrettable. As in many other parts of the country, Cumbria public health has been far more successful, with a 97% success rate. However, because of a flaw in the system, if someone is contacted by Cumbria public health, they are not able to get the isolation grant. That is preventing many people from making the choices that they need to make to keep everybody safe, while also putting food on the table. Does he agree that the Government need to answer calls from the director of public health in Cumbria, and ensure that those who are contacted and asked to isolate by that body get that grant?

Alex Norris: The hon. Gentleman gives a concerning example that shows how the system is struggling in general. I hope that the Minister will address that issue when she winds up the debate, and I will refer more directly to local authority public health shortly.
I do not want to carp on about what is not working without providing any solutions, so I come armed with three things that Ministers could do at a stroke of their collective pens that would radically improve test and trace in short order. First, we must better use NHS lab capacity to turn tests around. I very much welcome what the Minister said about megalabs, which we have eagerly anticipated for some months. However, there has been a large gap in which we have not had that lab capacity, and we will not have it for some time yet. In the meantime, let us put our NHS lab capacity to use in getting tests turned around.
Secondly, we should give control and resources to local authorities to run the tracing operation. They know our communities and already have a local presence. They are a trusted voice and, crucially, they do this routinely. They do this already. Admittedly, that is on a smaller scale—perhaps related to an outbreak of food poisoning linked to a takeaway—but they do it effectively. Let us support them to do it fully. Thirdly, we must develop a proper package of support for those who need to isolate—that is self-evident. Those three things could be done immediately, and we would all be better off if they were.
We have seen the consequence of failure and of a test and trace system that is struggling, and that is another lockdown. This time last year we were banging on doors in the cold and the rain, and none of us supported the lockdown because we want to keep family members away from each other, or to shut businesses in our community or anybody else’s. However, the failure to break the transmission rate of the virus leads us there.
There are two important things that I wish the Government would communicate more. This is not a choice between lockdown and the economy; it is not a choice between lockdown and non-covid healthcare treatment in the NHS. We must have the lockdown for those purposes, and the longer we delay putting restrictions in place, the worse are the long-term impacts on our economy. If we do not introduce regulations to reduce the transmission of the virus, the greater are the pressures on our hospitals, and the less likely they are to be able do other treatments. Those things are not in tension; they are very much complementary.
The failures of test and trace may have led us to a lockdown, but that lockdown buys us time to sort out problems in the system. We must see progress. Lockdowns alone will not tackle or eradicate the virus, but they buy us time to put in place the things that do. We have now had two weeks of lockdown, but we have not heard about what is improving in the test and trace system, or what will be better, including in the next two weeks. Ministers really need to say this today, so we can be sure and confident that the time is being used wisely. Otherwise, when we leave lockdown, this will all recur again, something that none of us wants.
We are all very wary of Christmas. Depending on which newspaper Members read, they may have woken up yet again to see that the Government’s plans, this time regarding yuletide festivities, had been briefed out to national newspapers. Putting aside the discourtesy to  the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, to all of us and to this place in general, that is all well and good, but those plans are only going to be feasible if the right efforts are put in place now and this time is used wisely.
It also ought to be stated that this lockdown is longer and more painful than it needed to be because, once again, the Government acted too slowly. The scientists told them they needed to lock down, as did we, but for two weeks the Prime Minister disregarded reality, which meant that the situation worsened. That has meant that the lockdown will be longer and harder, and also meant that we lost the benefits of the school holidays. These are mistakes that cannot be repeated in the future.
As we exit lockdown, the Government need to be honest with the British people—not in off-the-record briefings to mates in the media, but to the British people—about what will come next, both at Christmas and in the return to a tiered system. I know from our experience in Nottingham that trying to negotiate restrictions was painful, even when we wanted them at the beginning of October as our infection rates increased precipitously. We could not get the initial restrictions we wanted, because the Government were moving to the tiered system and it did not fit their timeline. We then managed to get into the tiered system at tier 2; the next day, the Government said that they wanted us to move into tier 3 and were going to call us, which they did not for a further week. Eventually, we had the painful negotiations about what that actually meant for Nottingham: we brought those restrictions in on the Friday, and by the Saturday, the national lockdown had leaked out. The system has not worked for Nottingham, so we need to know that in any return to a tiered system, the Government are going to work much more quickly and in a more agile manner. Every day wasted is a day when the virus thrives, so we need to be better upon exit.
Turning to the vaccine, we strongly welcome the Government’s efforts in this area: they were right to pre-order doses across a wide portfolio, and they were also right to back British. With our excellent research and our proud record in this area, we should be in the vanguard of it, and patriotic about our efforts to tackle this global issue. Last week, I responded on behalf of the Opposition in an excellent Westminster Hall debate on the covid-19 vaccine, secured by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), the day after the news broke that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had achieved success in a phase 3 study. Since then, we have heard similarly positive news about the NIH-Moderna vaccine candidate, which is likely to be followed by other candidates, whether that of the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, the candidate referenced by the Minister, or candidates developed elsewhere. I understand that overnight, there have been further promising developments for a Chinese candidate.
During that debate, colleagues and I raised the challenges and considerations that need to be addressed to make sure that this is handled and executed well. I will not repeat those contributions in the level of detail we went into then—they are on the record in Hansard for people to read. However, the theme was that we cannot repeat the slowness or logistical challenges that we saw early in the pandemic with regard to the procurement of personal  protective equipment and testing: no Nottingham people being sent to Llandudno or Inverness for their healthcare this time, please, Minister.
As we have done throughout the pandemic, we on the Opposition Benches will work constructively with the Government to support viable vaccines being secured, ensure the right groups are being prioritised, develop an effective delivery programme, counter vaccine hesitancy—that is critical—and continue to support these efforts globally. A failure on any of those points will undermine the whole process, so it is absolutely crucial that we come together, and I am sure that Ministers will welcome that.
However, I want to briefly reference a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made regarding the NAO report. Again, we understand—as that report did—that the Government were having to do things that would normally take 18 months’ worth of planning in hours and days, and that comes with some efficiency trade-offs. However, we did not hear clearly enough in the Minister’s opening statement a sense that that has been reflected upon, and we did not hear what will be different in future to make sure those mistakes are not repeated.

Karin Smyth: I appreciate my hon. Friend having picked up on the point I made. The Minister very carefully read out a statement in reply to my question about the Government’s response to the NAO report. I am concerned that she was saying that the Government stand by what they did in that period, and do not think that the way in which those contracts and large procurement processes were handled was a problem. It may be that the Minister wants to correct the record, but if that is the case, does my hon. Friend agree that that is deeply worrying?

Alex Norris: I heard the point that the test had been clear that nothing wrong had been done, which, frankly, is a very low bar. I do not think anybody would say that there was nothing that happened in the early procurement phases that we would not perhaps want to change or do better later. I hope that the Paymaster General in winding up might reflect on that.
Perhaps this is the best place to say that the announcement on long covid will be very much welcomed by a lot of people, including my good friend Jo Platt who has been campaigning on this for many months, as well as living with her long covid. This is a story for lots of people up and down the country, across all our constituencies, who are living with the after-effects of this horrible virus over and over again. The act of knowing that they are being heard, as well as the 40 clinics, will be a real tonic to a great number of people, so we very much welcome that.
I turn to inequalities. At the beginning of the pandemic, we talked about the virus being a great leveller, not distinguishing between us depending on our lives, our jobs and our postcodes, but nine months on we know that to be patently untrue. Sixty per cent. of those who died were living with disabilities. Those of Bangladeshi heritage are twice as likely to die as those who are white British. Those of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and black Caribbean ethnicities are 10% to 15% more likely to die than I am. Mortality rates in the most deprived communities are more than twice those of the least deprived communities. This pandemic has shone a light on our inequalities, whether that means the inequality in work, in housing or  in income, and these inequalities have had tragic consequences for some and, in the aggregate, are catastrophic for all of us.
When we beat this virus, which together we will, what comes out of it must be a fair settlement that recognises these inequalities as bad and tackles them head-on. That is why it is already concerning to see again—of course, leaked to national newspapers—that the overseas aid budget is the first on the chopping block. In 2010, the Government chose to target those who had the least to pay for a crisis that they did not cause, and these reports are a sign that maybe this is the plan again. We will not let them repeat this in 2020. It simply would be hugely unjust.
Before I finish, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our incredible NHS and social care staff for all they have done for us. They are truly the best of Britain. Similarly, the pandemic has revealed the key workers all over our communities and all over our economy, so this week, during Respect for Shopworkers Week, I would like to say a special thank you to those working in our shops, keeping us fed, but still facing rising violence and abuse every day. The Government should take better action to protect you—the Government could, of course, adopt my private Member’s Bill and I encourage them to do so—but whether it is that or through another mechanism, we will fight for you until they do.
In conclusion, now more than ever we must stand together as a country, as families and as communities, and show once again that at a moment of national crisis, the British people always rise to the challenge, support those who need it and pull together. That involves not only recognising successes, but assertively tackling the failures that have held us back during the pandemic. If we address these, we will beat this virus.

Nigel Evans: We will begin with a time limit of six minutes.

Adam Afriyie: It strikes me that, as MPs, it is our duty to make difficult decisions. We must face head-on the life and death challenges that very few people would wish to face in their daily lives. We must make contested judgments, and this debate and the response to covid is a case in point. Whether it is going to war with Iraq, which was before my time in this House, military operations in Syria or the very painful issues surrounding Brexit, we have a duty to reflect carefully and responsibly when confronted with complex challenges. It seems to me that our response to covid demands a similar level of reflection to reach our best judgments.
There are a multitude of variables involved in this decision making. Given that thousands of lives are being lost to covid, thousands of lives are being lost with covid, and thousands of lives are being lost by our response to covid, it is no easy judgment. Businesses are being forced to close across my constituency and across the country—businesses that people have spent their lives building up. Jobs and livelihoods are being wiped out. Civil liberties are certainly under threat, freedom of speech is threatened, freedom of assembly has been all but washed away in the short term, and even Parliament—even with your efforts, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the efforts of Mr Speaker—is not necessarily functioning as it should during a crisis such as this.
Looking back, I suspect hon. Members will agree that the first lockdown was absolutely the right thing to do. In March this year we were confronted with an unknown enemy: a deadly virus determined to secure its own survival by infecting as many people as possible, with sometimes fatal consequences. With incomplete information from China at the time, we did not know the fatality rate. We did not know the vectors and means of transmission, or which age groups were worst affected, or about its ability to mutate or the type of mutation that may take place. We did not have a ready treatment available for the symptoms.
That was back in March, but today we know so much more. We know that healthy children are hardly affected by the virus, and that is a godsend, considering illnesses and diseases from the past. We know now that the overwhelming majority of adults are reasonably safe: perhaps 80% will not necessarily even notice any symptoms. We know that people over the age of 65 and those with pre-existing conditions are, sadly, most likely to suffer the serious effects of the virus. We know that the virus is transmitted by touch and by being in close proximity to others, and that washing hands and maintaining social distance largely prevent transmission.
We also have far more PPE than we had when we started, thanks to the efforts of the Government. Even if we have overdone it with PPE and end up at the end of this pandemic with millions, if not billions, of pounds’ worth of spare excess PPE, that will be a good sign: it will be a sign that we prepared effectively, and it may be of use to other nations in the future.
We also know that modern treatments can halve the death rate. We know that vaccines, particularly the two new ones, can stop the illness by generating antibodies. We know that our NHS, if fully staffed, can treat those affected, provided that the inflow of patients is moderated over time.
We can see from data that the tiered local approach is having an impact. Data that we have seen over the past week or two is to do not with the current lockdown but with the previous regional measures. That is a good thing, because we can see that we can control this virus to some degree.
Of course, there is still much more that we do not know. That is why we will be forced to make a judgment at the end of this month, but that judgment must be an informed judgment. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to giving Parliament a say on future restrictions and regulations. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s desire to try to avoid restrictions in future, if it is considered safe to do so, and I very much welcome the Minister’s comments earlier about the progress we have made in tackling the disease so far and our prospects to do so in the not-too-distant future.
To move forward I believe we need to recognise the costs of the restrictions in addition to the benefits of future restrictions. I urge the Government to do three things. First, I ask them to prepare a clear cost-benefit analysis of any future proposed regulations, in terms of both the health and the economic costs and benefits in the short and the long term. Clearly, the two are intricately connected, but it is very important that MPs in this House—the decision makers—have clear sight of the overall costs and benefits.
Secondly, I ask the Government to ensure that the latest data is available from the NHS on hospitalisations, intensive care unit beds and their occupancy, and death rates from all causes, very carefully categorised, perhaps against a five-year baseline. This summer we have seen that the modelling can, let’s face it, get a bit out of control and, on occasion, be more like conjecture than reality. When we make the decision at the end of this month, it is important that we are in a better position to see the real data and perhaps to reflect on it ourselves.
Thirdly, I urge the Government—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am terribly sorry, but the six minutes are up. I know that before I call you, Mr Hanvey, you will be conscious of the time constraints on other people.

Neale Hanvey: This global pandemic has shaken the lives of so many. The pain from the loss of loved ones, friends and colleagues has been compounded by redundancy or business failure, as support for key sectors has failed to materialise or people have found themselves excluded from the UK Government schemes. As we now pin our collective hopes on the brightest and the best delivering promising vaccine candidates into clinical use, we must turn our minds to our recovery and how we choose to build a better, greener and fairer future for our communities.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to those who have contributed to the spirit of community across my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency. First, I pay tribute to Tricia Marwick, the chair of the NHS Fife board, and to its members, to Dr Chris McKenna, the medical director, and Helen Buchanan, the director of nursing, and to every single member of staff on the frontline, to whom we owe so much.
I would also like to pay tribute to the local media outlets—the Fife Free Press, the Central Fife Times, K107 community radio and Kingdom FM—all of which have helped my constituents stay informed and updated and have kept us all safe. I pay tribute to the many community lifeline groups, such as the Cottage Family Centre, which aims to ensure that no child or family goes hungry, cold or without presents this Christmas; Love Cowdenbeath, whose online presence has been supporting the local community and retailers; and Linton Lane Centre, which sadly, like other groups across my constituency, had to cancel its annual Christmas day meal for seniors, but will aim to distribute 100 hampers to those who would have attended.
There are so many other examples that I simply do not have time to mention, but the spirit of community that has emerged from this dreadful pandemic is built on hope and an aspiration to do better by our neighbours and, like much of my constituency, is bursting with vision, ambition and confidence that a better future is possible.
Such a future is possible, but it is imperilled by decisions made in this place, led by a Prime Minister who considers our considerable achievements in government and our shared aspirations a mistake and does not see a case for further consideration. I put it to the House that, in our recovery from covid-19, it is the independent  countries that will do better. By following the path of regaining democratic control of our own country, our people will be richer, our influence for good greater and our future brighter.
However, the PM’s unguarded words have undermined even article 19 of the Acts of Union, which he purports to uphold. He poured scorn on Scots’ ability to make their own laws while, in his words,
“free-riding on English taxpayers”,
describing it as “simply unjust”. I would be interested to know if the Minister genuinely thinks that the people of Scotland believe that a Government with such an appalling track record—of austerity, welfare cuts, the two-child cap, the bedroom tax, benefit sanctions and the unfair manner in which the Women Against State Pension Inequality have been treated—are uniquely benevolent when it comes to Scotland. Of course she does not, and the facts expose the mendacity of that obtuse notion.
It is a matter of record that in each of the 30 years prior to the introduction of “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland”, Scotland generated more tax revenue per head for the UK Treasury than the rest of the UK. If the Minister believes that with 8.2% of the population Scotland creates between 50% and 60% of the UK deficit, will she please direct me to where that money was spent and by whom? Will she also tell me why the people of Scotland should have any confidence in this place to help Scotland build a better future post covid? I can provide the Minister with the answer: they do not.
According to the latest gold-standard Scottish social attitudes survey, 61% of people say they trust the Scottish Government to work in the national interest, but just 15% trust the UK Government to do likewise. The gulf is even wider when it comes to leadership. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s approval rating in Scotland is 100 points above that of the Prime Minister, with one commentator—a Unionist, as it happens—stating today that
“that is the good news”
for the Prime Minister, since he suspects that he has
“not yet reached rock bottom”.
That distrust will only grow as the cronyism at the heart of this Government continues to be exposed. Today the National Audit Office released its damning report on the UK Government’s procurement practices during the pandemic, which confirms what we have been saying for months about a Government failing to manage conflicts of interest, doling out public money to clearly unsuitable companies and improperly avoiding scrutiny.

Tim Farron: I think the hon. Member will probably agree with me that what is galling for so many people is the £10.5 billion of contracts given out without proper tender processes and without transparency, if we contrast that with the 3 million people in this country—people who have been self-employed for a short time, company directors of small limited companies and many others—who have been completely excluded from support. A small fraction of that amount of money would have kept food on their tables and a roof over their head.

Neale Hanvey: The hon. Gentleman makes the extremely important point that the avarice attached to these contracts undermines any sense that the Government are putting  their arms around anyone, let alone the whole country. I would be interested if the Minister could indicate whether the Prime Minister will heed SNP calls—in fact, cross-party calls—for a full public inquiry into the cronyism at the heart of this Government. Convincing answers are urgently needed as to why so many Tory friends, relatives, donors and prominent lobbyists were awarded jobs and privileged access to UK Government meetings and decision making.
The National Audit Office has exposed and confirmed the existence of VIP lanes in which unsuitable companies were often placed by the private offices of Ministers, and they were more than 10 times as likely to win a contract as other suppliers. Recent weeks have seen reports that £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money has gone to companies linked to the Conservative party. Concerns have also emerged over the weekend about privileged access for lobbyists with links to the Conservative party, without any public process or announcement.
With so much suffering across these islands, it is vital that there is full transparency and that the public have confidence in the manner in which the UK Government spend taxpayers’ money fighting coronavirus. As we heard last week from the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), rather than support experienced and established UK-based PPE providers, the Government chose 12-week-old businesses with no experience or capacity to provide PPE. How can UK-based companies survive when their Government cut them off at the knees? If everything is above board, surely the Minister will have no issues indicating her support for an inquiry.
Yet that is not the only economic vandalism of this Government during the pandemic. Despite the promises to wrap their arms around everyone, support remains poorly targeted and offers no relief for people who have become self-employed more recently or to businesses in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency such as RG Construction, which was denied £64,000 of furlough support on a technicality it could never have predicted or met. Will the Minister undertake to ask the Treasury to review these entry requirements to open up support to self-employed people and other businesses that have so far been excluded?
The Government sprang into action to provide countless contracts for their wealthy friends, but that sense of urgency is sadly lacking when it comes to taking action on social care reform, pay awards for frontline NHS staff or addressing the poverty of carers. This week on the Health and Social Care Committee, we heard evidence that healthcare assistants were not being provided with the same standard of PPE as more senior staff, leading to stress, anxiety and burnout. This risk of burnout is all the more concerning when it comes to how we recover the delays in cancer treatment precipitated by the pandemic. The King’s Fund has described an already existing problem of chronic excessive workload in the NHS. This week we heard expert evidence that that, in combination with the culture that demands ever more, can lead to serious mental health problems. What action is the Minister taking to address these pressures and challenge such an unhealthy culture in the NHS?
I would like to pay tribute to Macmillan lead cancer nurse Denise Crouch for her valuable evidence highlighting the pressure cancer nurses have been facing before and during covid-19. Macmillan has highlighted serious shortages in the cancer workforce, in which 2,500 specialist cancer nurses are needed to meet current demand,  rising to 3,700 by 2030. I say with genuine sensitivity that this pandemic has thrown into even sharper focus the fragility of our NHS workforce and the need for fast-paced and substantial action. I would be interested in what action the Minister has taken to secure additional capacity in the NHS beyond March 2021 and to invest in the cancer workforce as part of next week’s comprehensive spending review.
Work-related stress is also being amplified elsewhere. Where is the urgency or action addressing the deeply immoral exploitative practice of firms firing workers only to rehire them on significantly reduced terms? This fire and rehire practice has sadly emerged in many sectors, most notably in aviation. Those are not the only threats to our ability to build back better after covid. To pile misery on misery, the Government are persisting with their plan—I use that word in the loosest of terms —with no regard to the consequences or the views of the people of Scotland.
What of the £20 uplift to universal credit? With so many now facing redundancy, this must be made permanent and extended to legacy benefits. These calls are backed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children. Can the Minister not see the need for this support and the positive impact that such support could have on health and wellbeing? If the UK Government are as keen they claim to be on protecting people, why is it that their own workforce in the Department for Work and Pensions, already equipped to work from home as part of a pilot, are being forced to work in an office one day a week in the face of covid clusters occurring among their colleagues?
In Scotland, we see things through a different lens. As a small country, we ascribe more value to the view that intangible infrastructure such as education and healthcare form the backbone of a country. The Credit Suisse country strength indicator places six small countries in the top 10. Small countries make up more than half of the world’s top 30 countries, with Scotland showing higher scores on the UN human development index than the UK as a whole.
Scotland must build back better, and that is only possible with the full powers of an independent nation. A new YouGov poll across Britain revealed that 85% of respondents from Scotland think that the UK Government are doing badly at handling the UK’s exit from the European Union. An expert study from Warwick University earlier this year revealed that Scotland is already £3.9 billion worse off as a result of Brexit, losing £736 per head of population, with Aberdeen the worst hit at £9,000 per head. Separately, Scottish Government analysis revealed that Tory plans to end the transition period in 2020 could cut £3 billion from the Scottish economy in two years on top of the impact of coronavirus. It is no wonder then that 14 polls in a row now show a majority of support for independence in Scotland, with the most recent poll by Panelbase showing support at 56%. I know that my focus on Scotland and the interests and aspirations of my constituents tire some on the Government Benches, but there is a simple and obvious solution available to them.
In closing, the difference between the independence regularly celebrated on the Government Benches and the one that Scotland will choose soon is that Scotland wants independence to join the world whereas the real separatists sat on the Government Benches have sought  separation to be an isolated and rudderless state. It is no wonder that support to abandon the UK separatists is growing, and growing in the majority of Scotland.

Nigel Evans: The time limit is reinstated.

Mark Eastwood: There are a couple of areas relating to how we continue to fight the virus that will benefit from some further consideration, and I urge those on the Front Bench to take another look at them and refine the current arrangements and regulations.
In my maiden speech some months ago, I highlighted the heroic efforts of our doctors, nurses, paramedics and NHS support staff in responding to the pandemic. As each day passes, my admiration for them grows even more—for their professionalism, dedication and resilience during these trying times.
At present, local NHS staff are battling with rising bed occupancy at Dewsbury Hospital and Huddersfield Royal Infirmary and with fluctuating staffing levels. Sickness, the requirement to self-isolate, burnout due to the very demanding nature of their work and poor staffing levels have seen wards badly hit. Having spoken to fellow Members, I also understand that this is a big issue affecting hospitals outside my constituency such as, for example, Pinderfields Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary and St James’s Hospital.
In my local Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, at times up to 20% of junior doctors in medical specialities have not been at work, through no fault of their own. That has the effect of increasing the pressure on those who remain on duty. It is not my intention to be alarmist, but having listened to NHS leaders and those on the frontline, it is clear to me that staffing levels are at risk of being stretched too thin, and the pressure is likely only to increase.
Meanwhile, there many third-year student nurses and fourth-year medical students in universities; they made a large difference in the first wave of the pandemic and could be called on again. A four-week placement of such students in hospitals could alleviate some of the pressures. After speaking to local NHS leaders, I know that they are keen to discuss that idea with the Government. I ask the Minister to consider seriously this temporary measure to help to release the pressure on our local hospitals and to support our amazing teams of doctors and nurses.
It is crucial to ensure that all our children get the education that they need at this time. The second thing that I ask those on the Front Bench to look at again is the guidance relating to school attendance of children with extremely clinically vulnerable parents—an issue that has come to light in my constituency. Although extremely clinically vulnerable children can, rightly, attend school remotely, the current guidance compels extremely clinically vulnerable parents—who may, for example, have a weak immune system—to send their children to school or potentially face a fine.
The parents are in a tough and worrying position, juggling concerns about their own physical and financial health while being required to send their child to school and risk bringing home an infection. The situation  could easily be remedied by allowing such pupils to study remotely. In these rare circumstances, schools and colleges are seeking to be as compassionate as possible, but they feel restricted as to how lenient they can be. I hope the Government will consider taking another look at the guidance.
It is not all doom and gloom, though, and there is much to be optimistic about. Rumour has it that there may be several vaccines on the way. The introduction of rapid testing should also help to control the virus until we are in a position to fully roll out a vaccine in the new year, which I hope will mean that we can all get back to some kind of normality.
In summary, I ask that the Minister and the Secretary of State consider my request to release nursing students to help our local hospitals, and that the Department for Education looks at the issue I raised regarding clinically vulnerable parents having to send their children to school during the pandemic.

Jon Trickett: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood); we share the same hospital trust and I was struck by the fact that he appears to think the diminution of staffing there somehow just happened by accident, when in fact his Government have been in power for 10 years. Throughout those years, there were cuts in our area: in the trust covering West Yorkshire, which the hon. Gentleman shares with me, there are 2,000 fewer beds in the health and care sector than there were when Labour left office.
It is probably no surprise that the chief executive has told both of us what is happening in that hospital trust: there are now 240 cases of covid in the hospitals we share, whereas there were only 170 at the height of the pandemic. The chief executive also told both of us that the trusts are now closing operating theatres, putting off operations and not allowing relatives of patients to visit. Of course covid is a problem—of course it was unexpected —but the truth is that the cuts went too deep and the NHS was left without adequate resources even in a normal year, never mind in the face of a pandemic.
The point I want to make, however, is this. I represent some of the poorest communities in our country, as many Opposition Members do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, we know that this disease affects different parts of the population in different ways. In the former mining villages that I represent, the number of people infected has increased almost threefold in the last three and a half weeks because covid attacks deprivation—that is what it does.
It is no use avoiding the central issue of the character of society that the Tories have built over the last 10 years —the cuts, the austerity, the hunger, the poverty, the polluted air that we breathe, the poor housing and so on. Here are some facts for the House to consider. The covid mortality rate among the most deprived communities is 128 per 100,000 people infected. In the least deprived communities, it is 58. This disease is attacking poverty—poverty that the Tories created, in a system subjected to the cuts that they imposed.
They cannot say that they were not aware of this. Sir Michael Marmot, a leading physiologist, wrote a report in February this year, before covid had begun to  really affect us. In that report, he said to the Government that the more deprived an area, the shorter the life expectancy. What a scandal that that should be the case in Britain in 2020. He went on to say that the social gradient, which is the gradient of mortality related to poverty, “has become steeper” in the last decade—the Tory decade. He also said that there are “marked regional differences”. Of course there are, because poverty is not only stratified in socioeconomic terms; it is also geographically organised. The north, in particular, has huge areas of real deprivation.
The Government were aware—they knew what they were doing. They knew that poverty, ill health and early death were connected. Covid has revealed that in terrifying ways. The cuts, the austerity and the poverty that has been inflicted reduced not only human resilience in physiological terms; it also reduced the resilience of communities to fight this battle.
How can Conservative Members vote to deny children food during the school holidays? Is it not quite apparent that a hungry child is more likely to be susceptible to infection than a child who has been well fed? Is that not clear to everybody on both sides of the House? Yet, during the half-term, that is exactly what happened, except for one thing: communities came together in every village across this land—I saw it the most in the poorest village—and looked after each other because the Government had abandoned those children. What a disgrace! If our society has the ingenuity to find a solution to a vaccine in such a short period and a way of tracking this disease, and if our society can mobilise the resources to distribute PPE and source the ventilators we need, surely we have the capacity to tackle the underlying problems of our society that they, to their shame, have created.

Tulip Siddiq: In the light of the welcome news that a potential vaccine is forthcoming, I want to talk about the consequences for BME communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, covid-19 has hit BME communities hard. A recent study in The Lancet pointed out that black people are twice as likely to be impacted by covid-19 as white people, and someone of an Asian background is one and a half times as likely to be impacted by covid-19 as a white person.
It really worries me that, of the 270,000 people who have signed up to the NHS vaccine registry, only 1,200 are from black, Caribbean or African heritage. That is only 0.5% of the entire registry. For people of an Asian background, it is slightly better, but even then the figure is only 4% of the entire registry. What worries me is that this is a community that has been hit so disproportionately —as I have seen at first hand—and if we do not get more people from this community signing up for the trials, the research findings will not be representative.
I want to pose a few questions to the Minister. I do not expect her to answer me straightaway, but I hope that she will consider my questions because I am really concerned about the BME communities and I hope that the people in government will think about these issues. What have the Government actually done to take concrete steps in trying to persuade people from BME communities to take part in the vaccine trial and to get involved in research that is linked to the virus? Have the Government  undertaken an assessment to find out why more people from BME communities have not been coming forward? Have they looked at the root causes of people not trusting the system? Have they tried to rectify these problems and bring people forward?
Are the Government undertaking initiatives that we simply do not know about, but should? I know that local MPs are undertaking activities with BME communities in their own constituencies, but I want to know whether the Minister thinks that the Government, have done enough with the national effort. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Equalities put out a statement saying that more people should come forward, but warm words will not cut it at this point—when it is about life and death. And, with all due respect, a Minister writing in The House magazine is not the medium through which we access hard-to-reach communities. We have to do better than that.
The low sign-up rates for the vaccine are not only a problem when it comes to representative research; they do not bode well for when the vaccine is actually rolled out across communities. In its independent report published in September this year, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation does not include ethnicity as one of the prioritisation factors for the roll-out of the vaccination programme. However, it does state:
“Any programme will need to ensure every effort is made to get good coverage in black, Asian and minority ethnic…groups”.
We need a better explanation of why ethnicity is not provisionally included as a priority factor for vaccination, given how vulnerable the BME communities are. I understand that it is complex, and of course we have to be careful not to allow anyone to believe that they are being targeted or forced to trial something that is unsafe—this subject has been a source of misinformation and mistrust so far—but we also need a clear plan from the Government to get good coverage with the vaccination.
The Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform has said:
“Vaccine trials must engage with communities or risk failure… this means understanding contextual determinants of (mis)information …and identifying both formal authority structures and informal sources of information/influence”.
The Government would do well to heed this advice, and I would like them to consider funding and working with small charities and communities that the BME community trust and engage with. For example, have the Government thought about engaging in town hall meetings—even if they are virtual—with BME scientists, doctors and nurses in order to hold question and answer sessions on the concerns of BME communities, and to provide more information? Have they thought about using places of worship as a way of disseminating information to hard-to-reach communities?
I am not being facetious, but I honestly do not think that politicians are the best people to do this outreach. A survey last year showed that we are the least trusted profession in Britain; we actually ranked lower than estate agents! I am a politician as well, and I am saying to everyone in this Chamber that we need to think about how we can get information to the right people through the right medium. This is not about scoring political points. It is a matter of life and death. I am worried that, if the Government do not take this seriously, we are going to run out of time and we will not do what is right by the BME communities in this country.

Peter Gibson: The people of Darlington have followed the rules, but this invisible virus has continued to infect them. Sadly, the infection rate remains high, with 337 cases per 100,000 last week. The local hospital trust, which includes Darlington Memorial Hospital, has more covid-positive patients than at the peak earlier in the year, so we welcome the additional 10,000 tests that have been made available to us.
As we entered the national lockdown, negotiations were under way to move the borough of Darlington, along with the other four Tees valley local authorities, into tier 3. It is my sincere hope that the efforts and impact of the lockdown will be such that, as we emerge from the current restrictions, we can remain in tier 2. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is aware that I and other colleagues from the Tees valley were opposed to an early move from tier 1 to tier 2, not because we wanted the virus to continue to spread but because we were concerned about the impact on the mental health of our constituents and the economic wellbeing of our communities. Part of that concern was alleviated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s additional support for those businesses able to remain open in tier 2 but adversely impacted. I welcome Darlington Borough Council’s efforts to distribute the grants as quickly as possible.
Darlington hospitality is legendary. We are proud to fly a purple flag, celebrating our town centre night-time economy. While hospitality businesses across Darlington are presently closed, I am confident that the support that has been forthcoming to Darlington will help us bounce back. We have had 9,000 jobs protected through furlough; 2,000 self-employed people supported, over £50 million of bounce back loans, millions in grants, rate exemptions and reductions. There is also the continued delivery of our levelling up agenda, with tangible investments, including £100 million in our expanded mainline train station and over £23 million through the towns fund, setting our plans on track for the development of the rail heritage quarter. Those investments will truly level up and help us bounce back.
I and many colleagues were elected not only to get Brexit done but to breathe new life into towns that stagnated under Labour control for decades. I am proud that, despite the wholly unprecedented challenge that this year has brought, we are continuing to deliver on those manifesto commitments. Recent figures reveal that in September the economy of the north-east bounced back at a faster rate than any other region of the country: a really positive sign.
We have the energy, drive and ambition of our Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, who has been at the forefront of much support through these times. With a saved airport, investment in hydrogen buses, trains and cars, carbon capture and storage and massive investment in offshore wind, new jobs in emerging technologies are putting the Tees valley at the heart of the green revolution. They make me confident that, certainly in the Tees valley and specifically in Darlington, levelling up is having a tangible and visible impact on the community I serve.
We all want to see the back of this virus. It has destroyed lives, changed everyone’s way of life and wreaked financial havoc on many businesses. I have been a champion for  all the Government have done to support businesses, but on behalf of the people of Darlington, caught between the desire for liberty and their commitment to protecting the most vulnerable, I urge Ministers to continue their support for our local businesses and charities, and in particular—I declare my interest—to provide more support for our hospices not only in Darlington but across the country.
Finally, I pay tribute to the team at Darlington Memorial Hospital. They have adapted at pace, doubling their capacity in A&E and in ICU and working around the clock. They are doing all they can in the fight against this disease and delivering their other services too.

Rosie Winterton: I can see that we still have a fair number of speakers, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to five minutes. It may have to go down a little bit more after that.

Feryal Clark: Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot remember the last time I was able to take part in a general debate in the Chamber, so I am delighted to be back here. I want to take you back to 1966. In 1966, Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and England won the World cup. When people talked about the moonshot they were actually talking about people going to the moon. It is 54 years since those events. That time gap matters to today’s debate, because before this year, 1966 was the last time that my constituent, whom I will call Mrs Enfield, was apart from her husband. That is 54 years of a life together: cups of tea; walks in the park; the trials, tribulations and triumphs of a long marriage. Now, along with her family, Mrs Enfield finds herself apart from her husband once again, unable to visit him in hospital after a worsening of his Parkinson’s condition forced him to go there; unable to visit him in the nursing home, to which he was moved after two weeks; and unable to make sense of a system that is doubling the disadvantage experienced by the most vulnerable adults. The video calls that they have been permitted are next to no good, as her husband cannot understand what is happening. The feedback that the family receives is patchy, and they do not know whether their loved one is distressed and confused.
That is not an isolated case. I accept that it is not simple to resolve it, but this is not March. The Government have had eight months to address the most obvious and heartbreaking consequence of the covid-19 restrictions. Our care homes, their staff, the residents and the families who rely on them were let down in the tsunami of the first wave. It is unforgiveable that they have been let down once again, as there has been time to work up safe solutions for those families.
I am sure that, like me, every Member in the House can point to anguished sons and daughters in their constituencies who are victims of well meaning but confused restrictions and regulations. No one blames the care homes or their staff. Confusion reigns, and they are doing the best with the guidance that they have been given. The truth, however, is that those visiting restrictions have created and deepened trauma, with disastrous consequences for elderly and frail people and their families. They are trying to make themselves understood   behind a mask; there are shouted conversations, 3 metres away, to mums and dads with dementia; people are trying to mouth and sign conversation through frosted glass in the November rain; and there is confusion and heartbreak as elderly relatives with Alzheimer’s think that they have been abandoned or have done something wrong.
We can make an immediate and safe leap forward by putting decency and common sense back into the heart of care homes by classing designated family members as key workers, offering them tests on the same basis as care-home staff. It can only be right, as Deirdre Barr has recently pointed out on behalf of Dementia UK, that if a hairdresser is permitted to touch her mother’s hair, so should she. The trauma that thousands of families across the country are experiencing could be partially alleviated if the Government acted on that one simple and fair change. Testing for designated visitors would be good for families, care homes and the country as a whole, as we try to reconnect with all our loved ones, no matter where they live.
A lack of fairness, however, has become all too apparent in the way in which the Government have awarded public money for covid contracts to VIP friends and donors. Many of my constituents have expressed anger at those dodgy dealings in recent months. It is neither right nor fair for the Government to bypass usual procurement procedures and gift their friends lucrative contracts, some of which result in the purchase of products that are unsuitable for use—for example, £150 million was spent on masks that could not be used. A transparent procurement process would not only have secured value for money but would have ensured that companies could reach a certain stage of the bidding process only if the product that they offered could do the job as intended. The Government have failed to do that.
My constituents in Enfield North and I want to see a return to fairness—a fair process to be conducted when spending taxpayers’ money to combat the virus and a fair approach to allowing relatives to visit loved ones in care and nursing homes. It has been eight months since the first lockdown. We can and should be better than this.

Christian Wakeford: I start by paying tribute to the amazing work undertaken by healthcare workers, care workers, teachers and support staff in schools, and all the key workers, who have not only kept us supplied during the pandemic, but kept as safe.
We have spent more than three and a half months in heightened restrictions in the north-west, and we are now starting to see a change in the curve. We reached a peak last week of 586.9 cases per 100,000 in the borough of Bury, and we are now down to 473.8 cases per 100,000. We are seeing a fall, but our numbers are still high and still of concern. I hope that trajectory will continue.
“Hands, face, space” has been the motto for many weeks, if not months, but I still think we are not as safe as we could be. Far too many hand sanitisers are out there that do not meet the set criteria. Many face masks are used mainly as a fashion accessory without offering any real safety protection. I would like to ask the  Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) what more work we can be doing to ensure that all products meet a set safety criteria and certain benchmarks to ensure we are as safe as we can be in public.
Following on from the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), care homes have been of huge concern to many Members and members of the public throughout these isles. There was a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last week where a lot of comments were made in particular about the loneliness and isolation of those who suffer from dementia and who have not had any real visits for months. There was a small period where window visits could continue, and to have those taken away in areas with a large number of cases was not only heartbreaking, but cruel. We are getting to a point where we are now talking about rapid testing for visitors moving forward from December.
I hope we can get to a point where not only visits can continue, but families can be reunited and the heartbreak that residents, family members and care workers—they are having to see this each and every day—can be fully addressed. I pay tribute to the great work that the Fed at Heathlands Village in Prestwich is doing in my constituency. It has spent an inordinate amount of money to make sure it is as covid-secure as possible for when visits can restart.
We have some potential good news on the horizon in regard to vaccines. It is great news. However, we need not only a plan for delivery that addresses all locations across the UK and all communities, but a plan B in case these vaccines do not come to fruition. At some point, we may need to start living with covid, and we need to consider that. Although it was great that there was great promotion of the flu vaccine, can my right hon. Friend say how many people truly took that up? Are we as safe as we can be from the troubles of flu?
I will start bringing my speech to a close by focusing on certain sectors that have raised their troubles with me—mainly the events and hospitality sector. Through no fault of their own, they are arguably the ones who are struggling the most. Moving into tier 2 and tier 3, when all of a sudden we prevent any socialising outside of people’s households, had a huge detrimental impact on those sectors. We had conference providers that were no longer able to provide conferences. However, because we did not order them to close, they were no longer able to access Government support. We had events operators that were unable to operate because there were no events, but because they had no bricks and mortar, they also received no support. While I am pleased that some support is now starting to be offered, it is very late in the day and we need to consider that there has to be a sector to go back to.
Places of worship have gone above and beyond. I have been speaking to communities and community leaders—rabbis, priests and imams—across the north-west, and they have gone above and beyond in making sure that their places of worship are not only covid-secure, but offer a place of solace, a place to appease mental health and a place of hope. I urge my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and all members of the Cabinet to do what they can to reopen places of worship for communal prayer and to give the hope that the nation needs.

Paula Barker: I am delighted to start my contribution to this debate by paying tribute to the key workers on the frontline of this pandemic. Their commitment to public service and their selflessness in the face of the most severe of circumstances set an example to us all.
I am deeply concerned by the dangerous polarisation on public health measures that have been implemented to save lives, and that is what I want to focus on. I am sure that Members across this House have been inundated with correspondence from constituents sharing very legitimate concerns about restrictions that have been imposed in order to protect the NHS, keeping us agile enough to deal with covid, while thousands of elective care patients have had procedures and treatments delayed. This suffering is real. The diversity of the issues raised is phenomenal, spanning mental ill-health, business support, attendance at funerals, redundancies, access to universal credit, and care home closures. We also receive correspondence from constituents reasonably seeking to clarify the rules in respect of their own actions.
On the other side of the coin, we have all received correspondence from angry constituents—on occasion aggressive, even abusive—about the restrictions that this Parliament has collectively implemented, under great duress and with an increasingly heavy heart. Aggression and abuse are never acceptable, but the anger is justified, and it is not taken lightly; neither is it dismissed by anyone in this place, especially coming from those many constituents who have fallen on hard times.
However, I want to shine a spotlight on some of the more sinister and fringe drivers of that anger. A cause for growing apprehension is the misinformation, the fake news and the dismissal of science in the post-truth world that a small number of hardened minds occupy. Assertions are made, social media lies are repeated, and distrust in our institutions, our scientists and our elected representatives is sown in reference to their motives. That translates into real-world consequences. This ugly underbelly has seen a small number of aggressions against those in Liverpool waiting patiently in line to be tested. There have been megaphones outside school gates screaming at parents and pupils about testing, confrontation sometimes of those wearing masks, and the outright dismissal of the growing prospect of a vaccine—a prospect that is giving so much hope to a beleaguered population who yearn to return to some normality.
It is apparent that much responsibility for such behaviour lies with social media platforms: most people receive their information through that medium. People currently have many insecurities, both health and economic, and the misinformation plays into these deeply held fears and is easily shared at the click of a button. My colleagues on the Front Bench are right: the producers of such material should be denied a stage to peddle these lies and myths that have no basis in truth. Ahead of the delivery of a vaccine, we cannot let the naysayers spread further mistrust when so much is at stake for all our people.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), although I do not agree with  her obsession with trying to restrict free speech and information for the general public. Surely it should be for the general public to discuss and determine these things themselves.
The Minister referred to evidence, data and scientific advice as being the watchwords of the Government. Those words ring rather hollow with my constituents, because they regard that as spin rather than substance. Earlier today, I suggested to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions that the million-plus people who had tested positive for covid-19 and had recovered should be exempt from the regulations because their T cells would give them immunity for at least six months. That is the evidence provided by and published in The BMJ, and yet the Prime Minister seemed to cast doubt on it, despite the fact that that evidence was produced in collaboration with Public Health England and has won plaudits from the Medical Research Council.
One of the advantages of providing such an exemption is that it would deal with the people who are suffering from long covid, to whom the Minister also referred. In Sweden, they apply such an exemption. I know that any references to Sweden are anathema to the Government. Last time I mentioned Sweden, the Minister tried to pour cold water on my statistics. She was wrong, and I questioned her and have not had an answer. Again, I make no apology for referring to the comparable statistics.
In the past week, ending 17 November, there have been 85 deaths from covid-19 in Sweden. In the similar period in the United Kingdom, there have been 2,975 deaths. Taking into account the population difference, there are six times as many deaths per capita in this country as in Sweden, and that takes no account of all the collateral damage that we are causing to our people who cannot get access to healthcare, including 5,000 excess deaths from heart disease alone.
The Minister was saying that we talk about evidence. In answer to parliamentary question 111413, asking about the public health justification for refusing to allow the giving and receiving of the sacrament in places of worship, this is the answer I received:
“Public Health England had not been requested to research and publish detailed specific data on the numbers of COVID-19 cases related to place of worship and allied settings on outbreak investigation. This is now being performed.”
That answer came in 10 days after it should have done, but why was that work not done before? Why are we refusing to allow people to receive the sacrament in places of worship without any evidence in justification? Similarly, I asked about the difference between two people playing golf on a public golf course and two people walking a dog on a public footpath. There was no satisfactory response from the Government.
On another issue, while the Government say that people are at great risk if they go to play golf together, the greatest risk, it seems, is to have the misfortune to go to hospital and then contract covid-19. In answer to a question yesterday, I have been told by the Minister that in October alone there were 3,934 cases of people who went to hospital without covid but got covid while they were there, as a result of hospital transmission of infection. In October, in Poole hospital, which serves many of my constituents, 120 people were in hospital, and some 73 of them contracted covid as a result of infection within the hospital.
The question I ask of the Minister, therefore, is: when we get the vaccination, will someone getting a vaccination automatically be exempt from the lockdown rules? If not, why not? Also, when we get into discussing criteria for moving out of the lockdown, what will we do about false positive tests? If there are 500,000 tests a day and 5% are false positives, we will have 25,000 false positives. That is number enough to justify a continuation of lockdown—based on false tests. Surely that cannot be sensible policy for the Government.

Rosie Winterton: Order. It will be obvious from the Order Paper that I have to reduce the time limit. I will do so to four minutes, but after the next speaker.

Diana R. Johnson: On 22 October, the Prime Minister said:
“We are wrapping our arms around the country to give people the support they need to get through this.”
I am rising today to ask the Prime Minister to make good on that promise.
At a time of an unfolding public health crisis for my constituents in Hull, with around three times the national average of covid-19 cases, Kingston upon Hull currently has the highest covid-19 infection rate in England and, indeed, in the United Kingdom. Our brilliant local NHS are planning for 450 beds for covid-19 patients and a back-up of 800 beds. We are geographically isolated. We do not have lots of hospitals on our patch, like other big cities, and our NHS could be overwhelmed. We are the fourth most deprived area in the country.
Last Thursday, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) were so concerned about what was happening that we wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, asking for action to combat the frightening increases in covid-19 in our constituencies. The leader of the council also wrote to the Prime Minister in similar terms, and both letters asked for a number of interventions from central Government that are fundamental to tackling this unfolding public health emergency. Sadly, to date we have had no response.
Let me take this opportunity, on the Floor of the House of Commons, to make these asks directly of the Government. First, we need logistical support and capacity to deliver Christmas tests for the University of Hull, as well as the welcome 10,000 lateral flow tests. Public health advice is that those tests are important and should be used in a targeted way, rather than mass testing. When Liverpool had an especially high rate of covid-19 infections, with 440 cases per 100,000 people, the Army was utilised for logistical support. As I speak, the covid-19 infection rate in Hull is more than 760 per 100,000. We need that help too, now.
Secondly, we require additional expert support from Public Health England and the Joint Biosecurity Centre, to work alongside Hull’s director of public health on the analysis and responses to the pandemic, and to pin down where the infection is spreading, and why. Thirdly, we seek additional local flexibility for Hull’s schools— 55 of the 97 schools are affected by bubble or year group closures. On Tuesday, attendance was just 65%.  As a former schools Minister, I want to keep schools open if at all possible, but to do that we need national support that permits a flexing of the national covid-19 rules—something local headteachers have asked for—so as to keep only vulnerable children and the children of key workers at school in areas where infection rates are spiralling and staff absences are too high. When Nottingham had high covid rates it was granted extra local powers and flexibilities, so please can we have them in Hull? We know that children from disadvantaged communities are falling behind due to covid-19, so we also need extra help with laptops and internet access.
Fourthly, Hull has been hit hard by covid and its economic consequences, and with national lockdown due to end in a fortnight, we need to know and start to plan now for what will happen in Hull, and the wider Humber region, after 2 December. If we move to tier 3 —or even, as has been mooted, to tier 4—in December, Hull will need additional support for businesses, just like Liverpool and Greater Manchester received. With Hull being a low-wage economy, I am concerned that we must consider further flexibility to support working families when asked to isolate, and we would like flexibilities around the £500 payment.
Jobs, livelihoods, and the future of Hull depend on that vital economic support. In the lead-up to the festive period, Hull cannot once again be the forgotten city, as it has often felt, from the Blitz to the Brexit preparations. We want to start to plan for Christmas and the new year, and give hope to our people.
I have listened to the Government’s commitment to levelling up in the north, and I gently remind the Prime Minister that that means the whole north, including areas with Labour MPs. The Prime Minister tells us that we must unite cross-party—absolutely—but amid all the recent Downing Street shenanigans, I was disappointed that northern Conservative MPs were invited to Downing Street for photo calls, while MPs from the worst hit cities who were seeking help were ignored.
In conclusion, Hull’s covid infection rate is expected to be very high for days and weeks to come. This cannot wait. We need answers. In Hull we have often had to make our own luck in areas such as green energy. We are proud, resilient and resourceful, but we need help now.

Sally-Ann Hart: Over recent months there has been robust and at times heated debate about the response to the covid-19 pandemic, from testing roll-out to PPE stocks, school closures and lockdown restrictions. We have stood in this House and debated fiercely with one another about the right course of action to take, and I have no doubt that in the months to come, that lively and necessary intensity of debate will continue.
We have seen great successes, and it is a testament to the ingenuity of British businesses that they have been able to adapt existing resources to manufacture vast amounts of PPE, and that small and medium-sized enterprises have had, and will have, greater opportunities to access public sector contracts. We have seen mass testing, reaching 500,000 capacity, due to the hard work and dedication of many individuals and organisations.
However, I think it will be universally agreed on both sides of the House and across the country that this pandemic has shone a light on acts of heroism, dedication,  fortitude and inspiration by our wonderful frontline NHS staff and care workers. Amazing doctors and nurses, porters, cleaners, receptionists and pharmacists, our GPs, care assistants and the management across our NHS trusts and care homes have all worked, under extraordinary conditions, to protect us and to nurse those who suffer back to health as best they can. These are the real heroes and heroines of this pandemic.
Many of us will have read reports and articles, and received correspondence from those frontline health workers, showing that some are about to be hit with hospital car parking charges, including a 200% rise at one of the UK’s biggest trusts. That cannot be right. Back in March, the Government rightly introduced, for a temporary period, free hospital car parking for NHS staff. That was absolutely the right thing to do. With Christmas fast approaching, I ask the Government to provide our health and care workers with an early present. Let us extend the free hospital car parking again and make sure that our brave NHS workers continue to battle the virus. We should do all we can to support them in a limited period of time.
I am tempted to go further this Christmas and even suggest extending the free car parking beyond hospitals, and ask the Government and MPs to consider and encourage free car parking in local authority car parks, for this limited period of time, for our NHS and social care staff. NHS staff have been there for us throughout this pandemic, under extraordinary pressure. Let us give them a little perk this Christmas. Little perks matter. Let us make life a little easier for them.

Karin Smyth: Back in March, when our worst fears were confirmed and the first lockdown hit, I thought that some aspects of the UK Government’s response would be taken as read. I worked in public health and emergency planning before entering this place, and I know at first hand what a response should look like in the most basic terms and what it should feel like. I expected usual processes to function and best practice to kick in, and for muscle memory and accepted norms to initially, at least, shape our response. And I expected all that to happen underpinned by Government support.
I accept that the extraordinary nature of those months, as the Minister said in opening this debate, was unusual, However, as the National Audit Office report states, there were 11 ministerial directions. I do not accept that the virus was unexpected: the scenario planning was based on a threat of this type. I do not accept that the NHS was prepared: the Government were consistently warned that running at 95% capacity was not sustainable. And I do not accept that the way in which the response was led is beyond scrutiny.
What we heard from the Dispatch Box earlier was worrying, and I hope that the Paymaster General will clarify the situation when she winds up the debate. Essentially, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), said, “Nothing we have done was corrupt.” However, issuing a ministerial direction is serious. It is about regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility —and these contracts do not stand that test. One of the  contracts for free school meals, for example, was with Edenred, a French company. There was no formal tender process under the emergency regulations, despite existing processes and companies being able to provide those critical school meal vouchers back in early spring. That took so much time and energy from schools in my constituency. It affected vulnerable children and that is totally unacceptable.
We may not be able to scrutinise the Government as we should because we passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, but the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am a member, will continue to do its job. I hope the Government will consider a more open and transparent way of operating in the coming months and that they will look at our report—the Minister gave evidence to the inquiry—in order to learn some of the lessons of what we should have used from the Civil Contingencies 2004. I am afraid time precludes me from talking about that in more detail, but we should return to that in this place.
I said in July that I hoped that we had turned a corner and that there would be more local work and a more local response. I genuinely thought that we might, but we have not, have we? As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) has outlined, we will continue to try to make positive suggestions, but it remains the case that people in Bristol South are being disproportionately hammered by covid compared with other parts of the country. For the young and the very old, those on low incomes or in insecure work, those living in houses in multiple occupation, those from black and minority ethnic communities, those from multi-generational households, the cooks, cleaners and retail and hospitality workers, and those who rely on the Government, their inequalities are being exacerbated. This is made worse by the fact that the Government have lost time and wasted valuable knowledge that they could have used locally to manage the system better.
On the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, our inquiry has shown that the disconnect between the local and the national has been deeply problematic. In early May, we heard evidence from Sir Ian Diamond of the Office for National Statistics about how we could have utilised much of the data that is available much better, but again the Government have been too slow, and we need them to try to be much better. I think lessons are being learned, but I do not think they are being learned by Ministers and the Cabinet; the political direction and leadership are desperately worrying. We want the Government to do much better, and it is not too late to reset—it really is not. Our lives and our families depend on it, but it is crucial that the Government build back trust and admit where they have got things wrong. People will understand that. We need to empower local capacity and knowledge to lead the work, shape local solutions to the challenge, and deliver on the ground so that we can all have our lives back.

Nicholas Fletcher: I have made no secret of the fact that throughout this pandemic, I have been repeatedly impressed by the Government’s response to this monumental crisis. This is a good Government doing good things, yet be in no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that what we are experiencing is the greatest  challenge this country has faced since 1945. Since March of this year, little over two months after we had all first heard of covid-19, the Government responded at breakneck speed to ensure that we would both cope economically and save as many lives as possible. From the establishment of the furlough scheme and the Nightingale hospitals to the self-employed income support scheme and the rapid testing, this Government’s swift action has enabled us to weather the worst of the storm presented by this virus.
However, there is one issue that I believe urgently needs addressing by the Government as we manage this second lockdown and deal with the economic pain it is causing. That issue is that of sole directors of limited companies. Initially, I understood why it was difficult for the Government to offer such individuals support, as they had done for employees at the start of the pandemic. Having been in business myself, I am also far too aware that many directors of this kind pay themselves through dividends, and consequently have saved money by not making national insurance contributions. This, I initially reasoned, was one of the reasons why the Government could justify not offering the same level of support as they did for the self-employed back in March this year, yet now the situation is very different. We have entered the second lockdown, which has hurt many of the smallest businesses which are operated by self-employed directors.
This cannot only be looked at as unfortunate, because the other fact is that while these individuals have not been offered any support, supermarkets have been provided with up to £1.9 billion in support as a result of their business rate relief. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that £1 in every £6 of rate relief went to the big four supermarkets, which have reported nothing but strong sales throughout this pandemic as pubs, restaurants and cafes have been shut.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are a nation that is known to keep calm and carry on during times of crisis. We have undoubtedly seen that fighting spirit throughout this terrible pandemic, yet we are also known to be a nation that has a strong sense of fairness. Put simply, it is not fair that while directors of limited companies have received little support from the state, huge companies such as Tesco and Asda are benefiting from rate relief despite having seen good sales. We need this money back. Of course, I understand that redistributing these funds to such individuals may be administratively difficult, so I believe the Government should evaluate how this can be done based on a company’s turnover. It is a blunt instrument, but it is one way of doing it. In my view as both a Member of Parliament and a businessman, directors of limited companies with a turnover of £1 million or less should be provided adequate support by the Government through the use of the money we will take back from the supermarkets. I firmly believe that the vast majority of the public would be happy with this arrangement, seeing it as just and fair.
Undoubtedly, as we look back in years to come, individuals will criticise the mistakes the Government have made in the chaos of this pandemic, yet if the Government follow through with this policy, no one can say they did not act in a fair way. If this cannot be done, we should also remember that we cannot tax these people heavily on their way out of the pandemic when they have received little support from the Government.

Sarah Olney: I appreciate this opportunity to pay tribute to some of my constituents who have had such a tough time during this pandemic and during the lockdowns and restrictions. The businesses in Richmond Park have had a really difficult time, but I have been so impressed by how they have responded to the challenge, made themselves covid-secure and continued to deliver for my local constituents in whatever sector they are in. I pay tribute to those who have gone above and beyond and made a difference to the community. I am thinking of my favourite pizza restaurant in north Kingston, Peppe, which has been providing pizzas to NHS staff every time someone has bought a pizza from it.
Our cultural organisations, which we value so highly in Richmond Park, have had a really tough time. They were all opening up again and having record demand for tickets during October. Then, of course, we had the current lockdown, and we are hoping against hope that they can still open in December. I am particularly looking forward to going to see “Rapunzel” at the OSO Arts Centre in Barnes in December. It is billing it as “The Original Isolation Story”, so I think that is something we are all looking forward to.
I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to people who have been without financial support during the lockdown. I welcome all the Government’s efforts on furlough, and there is absolutely no doubt that that has been critical to the survival of many businesses not just in my constituency but elsewhere. However, I want to highlight the lack of support for those on contracts and the self-employed, which we raised in the Public Accounts Committee hearing with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on Monday. That is a big issue in my constituency. We have lots of people who are employed by the live events sector, which of course has been really badly hit during the lockdown, and it struggled to come back before the second lockdown. I just do not understand why we cannot do more for this particular group of people who have been paying taxes for years. All the records are at HMRC, and there is absolutely no reason why more could not have been done for them.
The children in my constituency have suffered huge disruption throughout the summer. I am so pleased to see them all back in school. I was speaking to year 6 at the Vineyard School in Richmond just this morning, and it was wonderful to see them all there. I very much look forward to being able to visit them in person soon. I would also ask the Government for some clarity on what will happen with exams next summer. That is what headteachers are asking for, and they need a decision now. Are exams going to be cancelled, as they have been in Wales by the Lib Dem Minister for Education there, or will there be a different source of assessment? Something needs to be done, and teachers ideally need to know before Christmas, so that they have time to prepare.
I was speaking to the management team at my local hospital, Kingston Hospital, last week, and that reminded me why we are doing this lockdown. They have had a big increase in hospitalisations, which, at the end of the day, are what we need to be careful of. I want to reiterate what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said earlier, and it is the message from my local hospital too: “Please, please, please continue to attend”. I have heard some distressing tales of cancer sufferers whose conditions  have worsened through not being able to access health services during the first lockdown, and I really do not want to hear any more.
I pay tribute to all the voluntary organisations in Richmond Park. I was speaking to FiSH, which looks after the elderly residents of Barnes. Its particular issue has been isolation, and I am so pleased about all the work that it and all the other excellent neighbourhood charities in Richmond Park have done, with befriending calls and so on.
Finally, it is such welcome news about the vaccine. We are all very excited about that, but there is an urgent need for clarity about how we get from here to where we have all been vaccinated and can operate safely again. I urge the Government to bring forward announcements on that as soon as they possibly can.

Nickie Aiken: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
I pay tribute to all the amazing key workers who have worked tirelessly this year in the care system, the NHS and local government, which I think is quite often forgotten, as well as the police and our teachers. However, I also pay tribute to the local people of my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster. Many people think that central London is an unfriendly place, but I can tell them that it is a place that is full of community spirit. I have seen that at first hand in the City, on the Golden Lane estate, in the Barbican and on Mansell Street. I have seen it at the Square Mile food bank, which has done brilliant work. It is manned by volunteers, and I pay tribute to them. I have seen it in Westminster, among the residents of Pimlico, Marylebone, Covent Garden, Belgravia and Paddington, who are really working together to help the more vulnerable in our society. I saw it when Westminster City Council launched its Westminster Connects volunteer scheme, which I took part in myself, helping to prepare food for the rough sleepers we have brought in. Some 90% of rough sleepers were brought in under the Government’s Everyone In scheme, which was outstanding. So I pay tribute to everyone today.
I pay tribute to the Government. Let us not forget how far we have come in 10 months. Yes, there have been difficulties, but we now have amazing laboratories doing the testing, we have the PPE, and we have the NHS working so well. I pay tribute to the Government for doing that, and I look forward to the vaccine coming on board and to us being able, hopefully, to get back to some normality at some point next year. It is also important to pay tribute to the businesses. Central London is usually first out of the traps when it comes to facing up to an economic depression or recession. Sadly, this time, I think we will be one of the last to get back to normal. We used to see 1 million people come into my constituency to work every day, but they have disappeared and the retail and hospitality sectors have paid the price, as have other service industries such as beauty therapists, cobblers and dry cleaners. Those small businesses rely on workers and visitors coming in every day of the week, but they have disappeared. I also pay tribute to the brilliant financial schemes that the Government have brought in. I held a roundtable for representatives  of the theatre industry in my constituency last week, and every single one of them paid tribute to the furlough system.
However, there are still things we could do. I would like to see an extension to the business rate holiday. I would also like to see an extension to the VAT cut, maybe to other industries such as the beauty industry and hairdressers, who have been hit particularly during the second lockdown. As we move towards the lifting of restrictions, hopefully in a couple of weeks’ time, we need to plan ahead. Businesses need to know what tier they will go into. We also need to look at the 10 pm curfew, which to me is counterintuitive. I would rather see the ability to stagger the times at which people leave restaurants and bars, because I think that would be safer. I would also like to thank the business organisations that I have been working with, such as UKHospitality, who have made their arguments. I have enjoyed working with those people, because they care about their sectors and about recovering the economy when it is safe to do so.

Rosie Winterton: In order to try to accommodate everybody, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes after the next speaker.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: This is a crisis of a proportion that we could never have imagined, but it seems that cronyism has proliferated in a number of recent appointments by this Government. Of course, Dido Harding’s appointment is an example of that. She is someone who continues to sit on the Benches in the House of Lords as a Conservative peer. She asks and answers questions as a Conservative peer. She has been appointed to run part of a Government Department, not as a Minister and not via the standards in public appointments process—in fact, that was totally disregarded in her appointment under the guise of this crisis—but because she has some contacts and was in the telephone industry, which she apparently was not very good at anyway. She has been appointed, and of course her husband is the tsar in charge of anti-corruption and all that kind of stuff.
Of course, it might well be that the very best people are appointed in a pandemic. It might well be that honest, good decisions have been made, but one of the central points of anti-corruption is the idea of transparency and the idea that public appointments and public contracts are given through due process, even if that due process is extended or expedited, and even if, in the end, the appointments go to the same people. That is not what we have seen and we need urgent action on building trust back into some of those appointments.
We also need to build trust back into many sectors. Teachers need trust put back into many of the decisions around exams, for example. I have just come off a call with the general secretary of the National Education Union and his feeling is that teachers are totally confused about what is actually going to happen. Will there be exams or will there not? Will there not be exams in Wales and Scotland? None of this would have been a problem if we had not had the scrapping of coursework.
The problem would also not be exacerbated if we were able to properly scrutinise Ministers, not just in this place, but in correspondence and parliamentary questions. The reality is that the response time to  parliamentary questions is woeful. My caseworkers pull their hair out every single day, and it is not fair. In good times, Government get it wrong and maltreat our constituents. They do it all the time, whatever the Government guise—under whatever party is in government —and one of our roles is to correct those wrongs when they are done. Correction is not always done through the courts. It is very often done by the MP.
If my caseworker has to wait a whole day on the phone for the advice line for immigration, only to be told, “I am terribly sorry; we haven’t followed that case up in three months, even though we promised you three months ago that we would follow it up”—that is routine, Minister—there is a real problem with the system. I have a single mum, for example, who claimed benefits. Someone else fraudulently claimed in her name. She has been chased down by debt collectors about universal credit. She has been treated appallingly. The Department for Work and Pensions agreed with me in the end that it was a fraudulent claim from someone else and that there should be no debt collectors, but it has not informed the debt collectors properly. Normally, we would phone the right people up and get through to the Minister, but that is not possible in this period. That needs to change.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). I have only three minutes and I have three somewhat disconnected points, so I will try to make them quickly.
I shall start with the situation in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. We have had a lot of good news on the national level recently in the medium to longer term. We have had good news on the amount of testing available, good news on PPE and the best news of all, obviously, is about the vaccines. Congratulations to the scientists on their breakthroughs and congratulations, too, to the Vaccine Taskforce on all the work that it has done to make sure that we are in the right place when those vaccines become available.
But locally and in the short term, I am afraid the news is not so good. The case rate in Newcastle-under-Lyme has risen to 464 per 100,000 and in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent, it is up to 562 per 100,000, which I believe is the seventh worst in the country, there or thereabouts. This has put a huge amount of pressure on our local hospital, the Royal Stoke. I would like to praise all the staff there, including the doctors and nurses, under the leadership of Tracy Bullock, who is doing a phenomenal job and has been briefing all the local MPs on what is going on. They have 304 people in hospital with covid at the moment and 32 are in critical care. They expect a further 100 by the end of next week based on modelling. They also have a lot of staff absence related to covid, with people having to self-isolate—62% of the staff absence is related to that. In the time available, I would like to impress upon the people in north Staffordshire the seriousness of the situation we are facing and the importance of continuing to follow the Government guidance.
I turn briefly to what we are asking of people in isolation and the evidence we heard on the Science and Technology Committee’s joint inquiry. I believe that what we are asking of contacts of people without symptoms is not rooted in probability, is not realistic and is not rooted in human behaviour. We heard from  Professor Sir John Bell on 10 November that the data on asking people who have no symptoms and are just a contact to isolate for 14 days shows that very few of them are actually infected. He said:
“In order to prevent a single transmission, you have to isolate 70 of those people for one day. It is massively ineffective. The trouble is that people out there know it is massively ineffective. That is why they hate it.”
I think we have to be realistic about how isolation works. What we need to do, using the new lateral flow testing, is to find a way, as Sir John Bell said in his evidence, to enable people who are merely contacts to essentially test their way out of isolation at an earlier stage. I believe that the same could also be applied to travel quarantine.
Finally, as I have only three minutes, I wish to turn to long covid. I bring high praise from my mother-in-law, who has suffered from long covid, to the Secretary of State for what he said at the press conference on Monday. I have seen for myself how debilitating long covid has been for her. It is debilitating for lots of people across the country. It is damaging to everybody, not just the older people who are suffering worse from covid—I should stress that my mother-in-law is not an older person. I very much welcome the 40 long covid clinics that the Secretary of State has set out. We have a lot still to learn about this disease and that will be of great benefit to the people who have suffered.
To conclude, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Science has shown us the way and I pay tribute to the Department for Health and Social Care for everything that it has been doing.

Claudia Webbe: Amid a deadly second wave and record-breaking numbers of covid-19 infections, it is important to act for change. The virus is continuing to rise. The measures put in place are not working. Time is running out. My constituency of Leicester East knows this only too well as our city has been under enhanced restrictions and/or lockdown longer than any other area in the UK, yet our numbers are continuing to rise.
People in Leicester East and across the country cannot afford to live below the minimum wage. Even before this crisis, more than half of the 40 million people in poverty in the UK were part of the working poor—suffering in-work poverty. Child poverty is off the scale due to a decade of austerity, extortionate rents and declining living standards. The Conservatives have overseen an unacceptable breakdown in our social contract in which a job no longer provides a route out of destitution. Yet now, during an unprecedented crisis, the Government are handing out poverty payslips and driving our residents into hardship. Will the Government today commit to ensure that no one receives less than a living wage throughout the remainder of this crisis? We are only as safe as the most vulnerable in our society, so, yes, local and regional authorities need funding to use their discretion to fully support undocumented workers and those on no recourse to public funds. Will this Government relax the barriers and grant status now to all undocumented workers, so that they can access much-needed social security benefit and not be destitute or desperate?
What makes this lack of support even more disgraceful is the billions that the Government have been willing to pay to private companies to oversee the disastrous test,  track and trace system. The recent National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement has highlighted cronyism at the heart of Government. That has had a devastating impact on the spread of the virus in Leicester. In one week this month, the success rate of Leicester’s privatised contact system was just 55.5% and this has decreased by more than 5% on the previous month. That means that, in one week alone, nearly 700 Leicester residents who may have been exposed to the virus were not informed and therefore did not self-isolate. This is a Government who are frivolous when it comes to handing out public money to Tory donors or private companies, but penny-pinching when it comes to bailing out communities and the 3 million excluded, including the self-employed across the country.
As the representative of one of the most diverse areas of the UK, I am also especially concerned about the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on African, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Recently published research by the universities of Leicester and Nottingham found that black people were twice as likely, and Asian people 1.5 times more likely, to be infected with covid-19 compared with white—

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Ben Spencer: The announcement of the preliminary results of the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines is great news, a ray of hope at a time when we are tired, weary and going through a second lockdown. There are still many questions, but the direction of travel is a good one.
I will talk in a moment about the many challenges ahead, but before then I want to point out that this Government are unrivalled in their support of research and innovation. They have led the world in funding and promoting efforts to find treatments and vaccines, and it is this Government who are already laying down plans to deploy a vaccine. After further analysis and the results from the vaccine trials come good, it will still take some time until we are on the other side of this. Depending who you listen to, life can be back to normal by spring, by summer, by winter, by next year. We simply cannot yet know, and while now we have reason to be optimistic, none of this helps those struggling now.
Lockdowns are incredibly damaging and the lockdown itself will have a cost in lives in the future. We need to think where we will be after six months more of this. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies does not consider the economic impact of its recommendations, which is a substantial limitation. The economic impact will cost lives through diseases generated through poverty. Our public services are built on the back of a strong economy. Economic damage means less money to invest in medical care and treatment, in community services and in education, again with a cost in lives and quality of life.
Decisions are being made on epidemiological scientific information alone. Although we have been able to see interpreted data—I thank the Government for making experts available—we have been unable to interrogate SAGE and the modellers directly or to see economic  impact assessments. The Government’s decision making is rightly based on the science. As any scientist knows, scientists disagree all the time. We need to be able to hold Ministers to account and to interrogate the scientists advising them.
I therefore support calls for a covid commission to take an overall view of all the features of the covid response, but again, that does not help those affected now. We will need to make more difficult decisions over the next few weeks. Lockdowns and restrictions, like all interventions, are a tool—one that has great side effects but, deployed cautiously when necessary, can prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. Just like in any discussion about a potential treatment with a doctor, before someone consents, they need to know the risks and benefits. That is why we must see clearly the projected harms and benefits before we make any decision.
We are told that there is no alternative, but with potential vaccines around the corner, we will be living with covid and its impact for some time. We cannot simply ask those who are struggling to wait just a bit more, just a bit more, just a bit more, so we need to have now an enduring plan to live with the virus.

Matt Rodda: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I appreciate that time is short, but let me start by offering my heartfelt thanks to NHS staff, care staff, key workers, volunteers and, indeed, our whole community. There has been the most terrific national effort at a time of great crisis that is, indeed, unprecedented in peacetime.
I would like to correct—or to set the record straight—what the hon. Gentleman said about the economy. It is quite clear from international evidence, including from the OECD and other economic sources, that we are not facing an either/or choice between a short lockdown and protecting the economy. A shorter lockdown—a quicker lockdown—protects the economy. Indeed, SAGE recommended that the Government should take action earlier this autumn, and it is such a tragedy that they did not. They are now, once again belatedly, following advice. I urge the Prime Minister to try to react much more quickly to these pressing matters.
I would like to make two key points based on casework from my constituency. I am sure that the Minister will want to consider them, but I urge her and her colleagues to take them on board. The first is about the expansion of testing, and it relates to the importance of testing home care staff—care staff who visit vulnerable people at home. I had a fascinating but worrying discussion with an elderly resident who pointed out to me that she is visited by her home carer, who has to see 14 other people each day yet has no testing.
Surely, the Government should be prioritising that form of testing—it is absolutely common sense—in the same way that they are now belatedly tackling the need to test care home staff on a much more regular basis. I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that she is in a difficult position with the short supply of testing, but I urge her to consider these sorts of cases. It was a very difficult conversation that I had to have with that elderly woman, who is vulnerable, yet her carer is unable to get a test. I hope that the Government can address that soon.
My other point picks up on something that other Members have already spoken about eloquently. There are many groups of people who have been missed by the Government’s attempts to support the economically vulnerable, but following a conversation I had with a constituent, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one particular group: people with small businesses who have had no support whatsoever. There is quite a large group of them—3 million people. In a country of 65 million, that is a really large proportion.
I wish that the Chancellor, for all his eloquent rhetoric in the House, would look at that practical problem. He has had six months to address it, and it has not been addressed. The case of my constituent is really telling. She set up a new small business in a thriving sector of the economy just before the pandemic started. She had no idea, but she was completely vulnerable to this terrible pandemic. Please will Ministers address the problem of these 3 million people? They are in desperate need.

Paul Bristow: One of the issues to emerge with covid is the apparent difference in rates and severity for different ethnic groups. To generalise, if someone is from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background, they are at greater risk when it comes to covid. This is accepted. But for some, it has been connected to an argument about discrimination—and this is actually coming from senior figures.
The chair of the British Medical Association appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee yesterday, so I took the chance to ask him about some of the views that he has expressed on this topic. Dr Nagpaul talked about “structural factors”, “differential attainment” and anecdotal evidence on PPE. I asked him several times whether he thought that the NHS was structurally racist. He would not repeat the term, but kept repeating that there were inequalities, and he said: “That’s what I am describing under that heading of racist”.
The NHS is probably the most diverse organisation in the country. It is doing heroic work to battle coronavirus. That effort has come from everyone within it, yet some regard the organisation as somehow racist. For me, this is personal, because both of my parents worked as nurses for our NHS in Peterborough.

Claudia Webbe: Does the hon. Member not agree that the intensive care beds are filled today with covid-19 patients from African, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds—back at levels seen during the first peak, despite earlier pledges from the Government to learn lessons and protect the vulnerable? What we need is change now.

Rosie Winterton: I really do urge people not to make interventions, because it is going to prevent other people from speaking.

Paul Bristow: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) for her comments, but if she listens further to my speech, she might fully appreciate the points that I am trying to make.
The conclusion that the NHS is somehow structurally racist can come only from the new logic of our age. The standard form of this new logic is this: if 10% of people are characteristic x, then 10% of workers should be x,  10% of every company should be x, 10% of every role should be x and 10% of all chief execs should be x, and where that is not true, it is offered as evidence of discrimination—differences are inequalities, and the logic assumes that what is unequal must be wrong. We have seen this logic applied to sex, gender, education or geographical background, disabilities and race, and now it is being applied to a virus: if 10% of NHS staff get covid, 10% of NHS staff with characteristic x should get covid, and because that does not hold for BAME staff, it is viewed as evidence of racism. I am staggered by how many intelligent people seem to have bought into this argument.
Characteristics cannot be taken in isolation; we have to control for variables. Moreover, no free society will ever see equal distributions for anything, even if individuals started from the same place. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not—we do not in character; we do not socially; we do not genetically; we do not economically; we do not in terms of upbringing, geographical opportunity or education; we do not in health and diet; we do not in career paths; and we do not in our preferences. These may be inequalities, but they are not evidence of discrimination. That does not change when characteristics are used to define groups. As any scientist should know, correlation is not causation. As scientists also know, getting particular diseases and viruses is not uniform, particularly across ethnic groups. No organisation could escape from this mad progressive logic: if it was not damned for one thing, it would be damned for another, no matter how woke its values—just look at The Guardian.
I want to be very clear: obviously there are incidents of racism within our NHS. There is still racism within our society. The NHS is far more diverse than most organisations, but it employs human beings, and it gets its fair share of bad ones. This needs to be detected and it needs firm action. Likewise, the NHS can be unwieldly and inefficient, so problems are not always dealt with as they should be. But this pandemic has shown our NHS at its best and its staff at their best. We ought to be proud of them. If—

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had longer than three minutes.

Fleur Anderson: I echo the sentiments of many Members in thanking our NHS workers for the work they have done throughout this crisis and will be expected to do through the winter ahead. I want to focus on an issue that affects them very keenly: the national scrubs crisis, which leaves NHS workers without the equipment they need to do their job in fighting covid on the frontline.
In answer to a written question I asked, the Government assured me in August that
“NHS Supply Chain, the main provider of consumables and equipment into the National Health Service, report that its suppliers have sufficient supplies of scrubs for NHS customers to order.”
That is not the case on the ground, as I am told by so many NHS staff and by those who are sewing scrubs on a voluntary basis across the country. The Government are lying, in denial or blissfully unaware of the reality on the ground. I would like the Minister to take the time following the debate to look into the scrubs crisis, to  meet the leader of the Putney scrub hub, who is a very inspiring woman, and to find out what is going on at NHS Supply Chain in order to sort this out.
It is essential that our NHS workers have enough scrubs and the right scrubs in the right size. Scrubs must be lightweight enough to be worn under other PPE, and they must not take three months to order from abroad, as they currently do, if an order can even be got in. There has been a massive increase in the need for scrubs in hospitals, clinics, care homes, prisons and now vaccination clinics. The demand for scrubs will increase at a time when we cannot even provide enough scrubs to our NHS workers. Staff are being told to go home. There is one hospital that has 500 staff and 300 scrubs, so 200 staff are being sent home because they do not have the equipment they need. Newly qualified medical staff are being told to find their own scrubs, and they cannot get hold of them.
The Putney scrub hub in my constituency, which has a highly-skilled leader, is making 15,000 scrub sets, all from a squash court in Roehampton. Those volunteers are still making those scrubs, and they want to go home. That is why I implore the Minister to look into this. The most recent orders they have had are from a psychiatric unit in West Middlesex University Hospital, from King’s College Hospital, Central Middlesex Hospital, the West London Kidney Patients’ Association—I could go on, but this demonstrates that a lot of NHS providers do not have enough scrubs.
There seems to be no central co-ordination of scrubs procurement and no national plan to deal with obvious supply issues. In July, I said that the Government needed to put this at the top of their to-do list to sort out in the summer. It has still not been sorted out, but there is time. Can the Minister address this and enable Putney scrub hub volunteers to put down their scissors and get back to their normal lives?

Rosie Winterton: We will start the winding-up speeches at 6.44 pm. There are three speakers left, so if colleagues take two minutes instead of three, we can get everybody in. I call Tom Hunt.

Tom Hunt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be incredibly quick.
This is an incredibly fast-moving situation, and it is too early to tell whether the second national lockdown has had the effect that the Government would have liked. Although it is hard to provide certainty, that is what a growing number of people in my constituency need. Retailers and the hospitality sector have lost November, which is one of their busiest months. They need to know as soon as possible what December will look like. Will they have the opportunity to make up some of the losses they have made so far, or will the restrictions be extended? Non-essential retailers in particular need that certainty, such as Coes on Norwich Road in my constituency, which provides essential school supplies. There is an argument that it should have been allowed to stay open, because there is a lack of a level playing field between that shop and essential retailers that sell non-essential items within them and were able to carry on selling those products. However, we do not want to see the scenes that we saw in Wales.
The school kids I met last Friday at Stoke High School have already lost a lot of learning, and they want certainty about what their education will look like in the year ahead. They want to know whether they will do exams and whether their mocks are a practice or will count towards the grade they end up getting. They deserve certainty as soon as possible as well.
I want to touch briefly on test and trace. I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Compliance is very low at the moment among contacts asked to self-isolate for 14 days. Some of that is to do with financial assistance, but some of it is also to do with the toll of going through that period. I have done it myself, and it is incredibly difficult for people who live in a small property with no fresh air.
Ipswich has low levels of covid compared with other parts of country. We need to remain vigilant, and we need certainty in key areas as soon as the Government are able to provide it. The education sector needs to know whether there will be exams and what they will look like, and the retail and hospitality sector needs to know whether it will be able to use December to make those gains. They need to plan soon, and every day matters, because hopefully they will be able to do that.

Robbie Moore: As I said in the Chamber two weeks ago, it goes against every bone in the body to impose restrictions on livelihoods and curtail people’s freedoms. I want to use my two minutes to talk about the next steps.
The whole Government have done a fantastic job supporting people and businesses throughout this unprecedented crisis, but grants and financial support can be no substitute for our businesses being open. From speaking to many businesses across Keighley and Ilkley, it is clear that a number of them relish the opportunity to stand on their own feet again. Therefore, as the country unlocks, it is vital that decisions are taken on the basis of risk and past evidence of risk, not on pre-conceived ideas.
I will focus on two types of businesses in particular. First, as a result of the enhanced local restrictions put in place in my constituency at the end of July, gyms and fitness and dance studios did not open at the start of September—indeed they were among the last to open in the UK. However, they have proved to be some of the safest places to visit. Therefore, beyond 2 December we must get our gyms and dance studios open across the country, because they are vital to improving people’s mental health as well as their fitness. That brings me to outdoor sports, which, from children playing football to a couple playing a round of golf, are absolutely beneficial to mental health and improving fitness. I urge the Minister to ensure that golf clubs can get back open.
Finally, I turn to non-essential retail and services such as the hair and beauty sector who have also been asked to close. My constituency is home to a wealth of independent shops, which are the backbone of the local economy. We must give those businesses the opportunity to open again, because they have spent so much money on becoming covid-secure. The answer is: yes, let us get those businesses back open to get our economy running.

David Simmonds: Thank you for your flexibility in managing the timetable, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two points that I will try to make in two minutes. The first is for those constituents who are bearing the lockdown with a great deal of patience and fortitude but who have concerns about the policy approach. I urge Ministers to share the data we have as widely as possible. I understand that the quality-adjusted life year measure that is standard for medical treatments in the NHS is not directly relevant to public health, but the more we can explain and demonstrate the value of this lockdown in preserving our economy and people’s wellbeing so that we come out of the period in good shape, the more confidence the lockdown will command. We should treat that as an urgent task, because people bear these measures with patience and fortitude—I think when history looks back on this time we will regard them as proportionate—but none the less we need to ensure that they feel willing to comply with them.
Secondly, I pay a big tribute to all those in the children’s sector who have ensured that nurseries, schools and childcare settings have remained open so that key workers and—vitally—working parents can keep doing their jobs. However, a challenge I am conscious of that affects businesses such as Jungle Monkeyz and Jurassic Perk in my constituency and many others around the country is the fate of soft play centres and other venues for children. They are closed at the moment, and recognise that the market will be there for them when they seek to reopen, but they are concerned about cash flow and any impact on the jobs of the people they employ. Therefore, when Ministers look at the financial support provided to all kinds of businesses, may I ask them to recognise how the wellbeing of working parents and children is supported by those businesses’ activities and that they seek to ensure that an appropriate degree of priority is given to them in the financial measures available in local areas?

Helen Hayes: As this dreadful pandemic continues week by week, we cannot allow ourselves for a moment to be desensitised by the numbers. In the last seven days alone, 2,909 people have died from covid-19 in the UK. Each one leaves behind grieving family and friends; my thoughts are with them. I pay tribute to everyone working in our NHS and social care, key workers in retail and distribution, postal workers, community organisations and many others working through the long, gruelling slog of coronavirus.
None of us debating coronavirus in this House is arguing to score points. The focus of this important debate, challenge and scrutiny is to save lives. That is important, because in the UK we are in the devastating situation of having both the worst coronavirus death rate in Europe and the deepest economic recession of any country in the G7. Scrutiny and accountability matter, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) highlighted the exhaustion and burn-out of NHS staff in his constituency, and the risk to NHS staffing levels. However, his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), gave him a  clue about the reasons for that, with the impact of NHS cuts on people’s resilience and capability to cope with coronavirus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) raised the devastating impact of coronavirus on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and their lack of participation in vaccine trials, calling for urgent action to address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) highlighted the devastating impact on families with loved ones in care homes who are unable to visit them at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) argued for the urgent need for action to tackle misinformation from fake news on social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke powerfully, from her own experience, of NHS emergency planning. The hon. Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) both raised gaps in the Government’s provision of economic support in relation to coronavirus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) spoke about the woeful failure of Ministers to answer questions and inquiries from MPs, which is vital at this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) highlighted the urgent issue of access to testing for home care workers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) spoke passionately about the national scrubs crisis and, again, the urgent need for Government action.
Today is a day on which the step change that we need to see from the Government is clear. The National Audit Office has delivered its report on pandemic procurement, and it makes for uncomfortable reading. At best, the findings expose shambolic incompetence, with documents missing and no clear trail of accountability. At worst, there may be deliberate attempts by the Government to withhold information and cover their tracks while wasting public money and awarding lucrative contracts to friends and donors. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government must seriously clean up their procurement act in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
This debate is about covid, the many difficult challenges that it poses and how we as a country might overcome them. It is clear that the Government’s crony-riddled, incompetent approach to outsourcing vital public services has significantly undermined the response. Nowhere is the impact of that illustrated more clearly or worryingly than in contact tracing. It is as clear as day that the Government’s national contact tracing system is not working. Labour has brought concerns about that to the House many times, as the system has consistently failed to meet the 80% target required for it to be effective, and the performance trend in recent weeks has got worse, not better.
When the Government announced the newest lockdown, the Opposition urged them to take the time to fix the contact tracing system, but that has still not happened. Last week’s figures showed that the system was failing, as 40% of close contacts were not reached—half the proportion needed effectively to break the chain of transmission. Labour, along, I am sure, with everyone in the House, is unequivocally delighted about the promising news on vaccines, but the roll-outs will take some time, and in the short term there is no silver bullet. We still  need an effective, localised contact tracing system. We also need urgent action to alleviate the devastating isolation of care home residents. Today, I met several care home providers, who spoke about the huge undertaking that rolling out visitor testing would mean for them, and expressed scepticism about the resources that the Government were offering to enable that roll-out from just 20 care homes at present to all within only a few weeks.
Across the country, people are sacrificing so much to do their part in beating coronavirus. The least they can expect is that the Government are doing everything that they can to fix it. Instead, little has changed over the past few weeks. The Government have not made any attempt to review their outsourced Serco and Sitel-led national system. They have not offered any more support to local communities, and they have not taken the practical steps they could take to improve the system and help it reach more people effectively.
The Government do not need to look far for practical examples of how to deliver a better system. They could look at the Welsh Labour Government’s localised, insourced contact tracing programme, which has reached close to 90% of contacts. It could look to local councils across England, from Preston to Peterborough, which are working hard to pick up the pieces of the contacts missed by the national system, despite not being resourced to anything like the levels needed.
This failure on contact tracing is not just hampering our response to the pandemic; it is having heartbreaking consequences. Families have lost loved ones, as people who did not know that they were at risk of having contracted coronavirus continued to circulate in the community because they had not been contacted and told to self-isolate. The sheer chaos of the system has also had deeply distressing impacts. For example, one family who tragically lost a father from coronavirus were telephoned multiple times by the national track and trace system. Contacts being traced are not just names in a database. They are real people with real lives, and members of a community.
There is also a spatial dimension to contact tracing. It is not only about speaking to individuals in isolation, but about identifying patterns of infection that may lead to workplaces or particular types of accommodation. Public health teams who are embedded in their communities, as well as being experienced in infection control, are well placed to do this work. Labour would trust those at the heart of a community to lead contact tracing, and it is not too late to change this. No one will be happier than Labour Members if the Government curb their instinct to outsource their covid response by default, trust and resource public servants to deliver, and stop handing public money to Tory party friends and donors. We urge them to do so, because what comes next matters.
As increasing good news of a vaccine emerges, we must trust the values of community and public service over profit, and harness the talents of the British people. We should use those values and talents to build a national vaccine system. We want to work constructively with the Government in the national interest, but that requires a clear change of direction: rejection of cronyism and commitment to public service. I hope that the Minister will set out today how she plans to clean up the Government’s covid contracts calamity once and for all.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It is a chance to remember those whom we have lost, and to share the hopes and fears of our constituents, who collectively have shown such resolve and sacrifice since the start of the pandemic and in the face of ongoing restrictions. It is also our opportunity to thank and pay tribute to the many individuals and organisations who are helping in the response. We have heard tributes to those providing PPE and scrubs, and even to pizza suppliers. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said that he hoped the Government were in listening mode. We are. I personally am in listening mode at 10 am every single weekday, when colleagues can find me and raise any issues, particularly cases that they are struggling to get sorted out with Departments.
I want to spend a bit of time talking about procurement, which, as the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) pointed out, it is extremely important to get right. We have followed clear processes throughout the whole pandemic. We have also issued new public procurement notes—not just for central Government, but for partner bodies. At the heart of that is value for money, and we always remember that it is not our money that we are spending. Accusations have been made about the quality of the equipment provided. I want to get it on record that 0.5% of PPE supplied turned out not to be up to spec or was faulty. That is an incredible achievement by those 500 civil servants, who have done an amazing job in this pandemic.
There have been accusations of a high priority lane. There is no such thing. As all hon. Members will know, there is a triage service for Members of Parliament. Today I have heard the scheme criticised by certain Members who actually used it, including the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who used it twice. Several MPs placed those contact points on their websites. No special treatment was given to those companies. The same due diligence was applied—all eight checks. What it did allow was gumption to be used. There were many great offers of help out there, and there were also some not so great offers of help. We wanted to avoid good bets being parked in a system and buried under thousands of not so useful inquiries. Those businesses and MPs were not on the take or the make. All of us were working together to meet huge demand, and to keep health workers, care workers and other key workers safe.
With regard to transparency, everything is in the public domain and is independently reviewed by the National Audit Office. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), quoted the NAO report, which showed that no evidence was found that Ministers had improperly hidden interests, or had been involved in procurement decisions or contract management. If any part of Government—for example, the intelligence agencies—cannot reveal issues with procurement, there are systems to ensure that that is properly scrutinised in this place.
The National Audit Office said that we were behind in our paperwork, and that is the case, but as one civil servant said to me, “I would rather be behind in my paperwork”—and they will be catching up on that—“than care workers not have gloves.”
The 11 ministerial directions included bounce back loans, local authority grants, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, small business grants, and the leisure and retail support funds. Concerns were raised with Ministers about them, but Ministers said, “No. Crack on: people need support.”
The hon. Member for Nottingham North rightly raised the issue of Test and Trace, as many others have done. I shall not go through all the statistics, but the latest published results, for the week of 29 October to 4 November, show that where communication details were given 78.3% of contacts were reached and told to self-isolate. He made very good points both on lab capacity and on support, which I shall raise with the Department, and, of course, on the importance of locally led contact tracing. We now have 80 local authorities involved in that. It is a central system, but they are doing the contact tracing locally.
Many Members, including Opposition Front Benchers, have spoken about the exit from this particular lockdown in England and the importance of getting the right balance. Hon. Members have also spoken about data. The Treasury provides regular data. We have key performance indicators in health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) mentioned the quality of answers he was getting. I am on this and have sent two of his questions back to Departments in order for them to do a better job.
I agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) with regard to risk management and what we can learn. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) made several points, but I say to him that, as well as the financial reasons that are often given for the Union of the United Kingdom, it is not just about head; it is also about heart. It is about our mutuality, and I think there is no greater example of that than the NHS—four devolved systems all learning from each other’s unique strengths, but working as one for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom.
Many Members spoke about the fact that covid has stamped on the fault lines of inequality in our country. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the Marmot curve, and he was right to do so. However, although we have had a lot of cross-party co-operation, it is quite wrong for people to revert to the default setting of claiming that the motives of Government Members are a result of their being either evil or stupid. Those are ridiculous stereotypes, but they still persist in our politics. The idea that people who were on free school meals as children or who grew up in deprivation or in the care system suddenly become a bunch of rotters when they get their Conservative party membership card is ridiculous.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) rightly raised important points about the BAME community and our Central Office of Information work. I shall write to her at length. The Central Office of Information does an incredible job in outreach and uses surrogate spokesmen, as she suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) raised very important points about workforce resilience, and I will take them up. Many Members raised issues about additional support and paid tribute to their constituents. The hon. Member for Enfield North  (Feryal Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) raised issues about care home visits. Their points were well made. Pilots are taking place for fast testing and improving all that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) raised excellent points about parking, which I shall take up. I shall also ensure that we publish on the parliamentary website clarity around exams, because there have been statements made about that.
In the 10 seconds that I have left, I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions. When I spoke before, I mentioned that although we were in darkness, there were many points of light.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19.

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was really disappointed that in the Minister’s winding-up speech there was no reference to Hull. I made a very clear ask for a response to the letters from the three Hull MPs and the leader of the council. I think the Minister might want to respond to that point.

Penny Mordaunt: I will happily respond. I am sorry that I did not have a lot of time at the Dispatch Box. However, during the course of the debate I arranged for the covid-19 taskforce—who, through the Cabinet Office and my office, will co-ordinate this—to have a meeting with the hon. Lady and any other people, whether colleagues in this place or the local resilience forum. The notes that she has given us today on further logistical support are incredibly important, and we will act on them. I will see her after this debate to confirm all that.

Rosie Winterton: Thank you. I should just say that both Front Benchers agreed to keep their contributions shorter than they ordinarily would have done in order to accommodate as many Back Benchers as possible.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Electronic Communications)

That the draft Audiovisual Media Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.

Electoral Commission

[Relevant Document: Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, Fourth Report of 2020, Re-appointment of Electoral Commissioners, HC 793.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will re-appoint Dame Susan Bruce DBE as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2023; and Dame Elan Closs Stephens DBE as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 13 March 2021 for the period ending on 12 March 2025.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Constitutional Law)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 25 November (Standing Order No. 41A).

Virtual Participation in Substantive Proceedings

Motion made—
That:
The Order of 4 June 2020 (Virtual Participation in Proceedings During the Pandemic (Temporary Orders)), as amended on 22 October, be further amended by adding at the end the following paragraphs:
() The Speaker shall draw up and publish a scheme to permit Members who are certified by a medical practitioner as clinically extremely vulnerable (or equivalent) according to relevant official public health guidance issued in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, to participate virtually in such debates as are designated for virtual participation by the Speaker.
() The scheme drawn up by the Speaker shall include:
(a) arrangements for demonstrating and registering eligibility for virtual participation in designated debates;
(b) any other provisions the Speaker considers necessary to secure the effective implementation of this Order.—(David Duguid.)

Rosie Winterton: We now come to motion 8 on virtual participation in substantive proceedings. The Speaker selected a manuscript amendment to the motion. Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is as follows:
Line 5, leave out from “Members” to “to” in line 8 and insert “with a public health reason relating to the pandemic”.
Under the established practice of the House, a selected amendment to a motion that cannot be proceeded with after the moment of interruption constitutes an objection, so the motion cannot be taken.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the provision that we have in this House is that some things  go through after the moment of interruption, so after 7 o’clock tonight or after 5 o’clock tomorrow night, on “nod or nothing”. The whole point of “nod or nothing” is exactly what it says on the tin—that if the whole House agrees, then the motion can go forward, but if one Member objects because the motion is not consensual, then it cannot go forward.
I tabled the amendment today after consultation with quite a lot of other Members on both sides of the House, including several Select Committee Chairs, several of whom went to meet the Government to discuss this earlier today, and following on from the debate that we had on Monday afternoon on the urgent question by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I think I am right in saying that every single Member who spoke argued for a more generous system that would allow Members who either have to self-isolate for themselves, or are shielding to protect other people in their family or for some other public health reason,  should be allowed to participate fully in debates, including on legislation. I do not think that many in the House disagreed with that proposition.
The Leader of the House said on Monday that he was coming forward with a motion. The motion was tabled late last night without being notified to the Opposition or any of the Members concerned, which is very unusual. The motion is on the Order Paper this evening. We were not able to table any amendments or have any consultation on this whatsoever. That is why I have tabled the amendment, which means that it cannot go forward tonight.
I understand from the Table Office that the Government have already said that they will table exactly the same measure tomorrow. I just do not think that this is treating the House with respect. The honest truth is that there should be no distinction between different Members. Lots of people have lots of different reasons why they would want to take part in debates. What I hope you will be able to confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that if we go through this whole rigmarole again tomorrow—the Government table exactly the same motion, and I table exactly the same amendment, which I can assure you I will—then the motion will again fall tomorrow.
I think the House wants us to be able to progress this. There are two ways in which we could do that that would meet the House’s needs. The first is that the Government say, “Let’s have a debate” and we have a vote on an amendable motion, and the House can decide. There are arguments on both sides, I accept, so let us have that debate if that is what the Government want. Alternatively, the Government table tonight—and they have until the close of play tonight—an amended motion that does not require individual Members to have to go to a GP to get a certificate to say that they are shielding so that they can then take part in debates, but actually allows MPs to be grown-ups, to make their own decisions and to take part on behalf of their constituents.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. First, I can confirm that if a motion is tabled for tomorrow night at five o’clock and if the hon. Member were to table an amendment and the Speaker were to accept it, the same process would be followed as has taken place tonight. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the comments of the hon. Member and will feed that back to the Leader of the House. Of course, it is business questions tomorrow, where this may be something that gets raised again.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not correct that if the motion is carried over from tonight and is on tomorrow’s Order Paper, it can be amended, and provided the debate starts before five o’clock, we can then have a debate about it and a vote on it?

Rosie Winterton: Well, a motion has to be re-tabled, an amendment has to be re-tabled and then that has to be selected. If it comes after five o’clock, then it would be the same as tonight; if it comes before that, then that is a different matter. I suspect tomorrow is actually quite busy, not least because the hon. Member  has tabled an urgent question, which will be heard, so he might be wondering about that one. I hope that that explains the position.

Rosie Winterton: We now come to the presentation of public petitions. As hon. Members will know, the Member has about one minute to present the petition. These are short speeches.

Petition - Financial support for the self-employed during covid-19

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in relation to financial support for the self-employed during covid-19. I have presented a few petitions this week, and I have noticed how much harder it has been for constituents to collect signatures in the current circumstances. So I would like to pay particular tribute to my constituent who has successfully managed to collect these signatures. She herself is only one of  the 3.5 million people who have been excluded from Government schemes, and I hope the Government can address that.
The petition, which I fully endorse, declares:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a particularly harsh impact on those individuals who are self-employed or run small businesses; expresses concern that, despite the Chancellor’s recent response to changing circumstances, his Winter Economic Plan means the Self Employment Income Support Scheme is to be scaled down; and further expresses concern that the many gaps already existing in the previous scheme that was inadequate for the millions of people who considered themselves excluded from Government support have not been addressed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward additional measures to support those self-employed and freelance workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc
[P002626]

Petition - Accessibility of leisure attractions

Siobhan Baillie: The petition calls for greater disabled access to leisure attractions, alongside an outline petition with more than 26,000 signatures.  That follows a journey of one of my constituents, six-year-old Sebby Brett, and his difficult experience at a theme park last year.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Stroud and the surrounding area,
Declares that all leisure attractions including theme parks should be adjusted to ensure that they are accessible to all citizens; further that all attractions built in the future should be fully accessible where possible to ensure that all disabled visitors are provided with equal dignity, an equal opportunity to experience the leisure attractions and equal value of money for their trips as all other guests; and further that guests should not be required to take disability tests.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitions and take immediate action to ensure that all leisure attractions are accessible to all individuals irrespective of ability.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002627]

Petition - Banning of unpaid work trials

Patrick Grady: I thank my constituent, Ellen Reynolds, for her actions in bringing the petition together. She has experienced what it is like to work a so-called trial shift and not to get paid. She does not want anyone else to go through that. Her e-petition on the parliamentary website has more than 7,000 signatures. I hope there will be more, so that we get a Government response, a debate and perhaps even action to stop that unscrupulous practice.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow North,
Declares that unpaid trial shifts are open to exploitation and can be used by unscrupulous employers to take advantage of vulnerable people looking for a job; further that often unpaid trials are for minimum wage jobs and the people applying for them cannot afford to work for free but may have no other option; further that unpaid trial shift workers may also have to incur the cost of travelling to and from the trial shift as well as procuring a uniform; further that potential employees may feel as though they cannot say no to exploitative trials without risking their future livelihood; and further that it is unfair to force someone to work for hours without pay, and incur additional costs, for a job they might not even get.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action and ban all unpaid work trials.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002629]

Solar Flares and Electricity Grid Reliance

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to rise for my first Adjournment debate in many years—once a decade perhaps.
I am a little concerned that people might think that I am trying to be the new Lembit Öpik of this Parliament, in that he was famously obsessed with asteroid impacts that never occurred. Equally, people might think I have been spending far too much time during lockdown watching boxsets, such as “Cobra” on Sky Atlantic, which I was wholly unaware of until I watched an episode this weekend. I assure the House that it had no impact at all on me picking this particular topic.
People might wonder what on earth I am on about. What is a solar flare? A solar flare, also known as space weather or coronal mass ejection, is an event that has the potential to knock out our electricity grid by causing voltage instability, power transmission network instabilities and transformer burnouts. A modest one in Quebec in 1989 did just that for a few hours to the Hydro Québec grid.
A bigger solar flare is likely to be around the corner, even if we do not know when. The last so-called biggie was in 1859, called the Carrington event. That was a very different era, with fewer consequences. Events with limited impacts have occurred throughout the past 100 years, but as we become more reliant on technology, they have an impact on navigation systems, aviation and satellites, increasingly. As with Los Angeles atop the San Andreas fault, another episode is both expected and unavoidable.
It is important to prepare, and with the knowledge that we will have very little warning that such a solar flare is occurring before we suffer the consequences. Government say that we are the best prepared in the world but, without being unkind to them at the moment, those are the precise words used of our pandemic preparations. It is therefore worth exploring in greater detail whether we are truly prepared for any solar flare, let alone the right sort of solar flare. The concern in the UK is that, while there was some pandemic preparation, it was for the wrong sort of virus.
The Civil Contingencies Unit might be able to maintain the national strategic stockpile of body bags. The NHS might well have tried to foresee every strain of virus, and ensure that vaccines were available, but the collision of plans with reality is always the point at which flaws are revealed. I do not mean that we should be looking at websites for survivalists and preppers, or stocking up on tinned food—we have had enough panic buying this year. However, we should consider those risks that the scientific community believes to be worth mitigating.
It is fair to ask how far the Government have progressed since the 2015 space weather preparedness strategy. As good as it is to know that solar flares are on someone’s radar somewhere in Whitehall, some of its relaxed conclusions may need re-testing. For example, the document rather blithely states:
“Some of this resilience is not the result of planning for this risk but good fortune.”
It gives me slight pause for thought that we are relying on good fortune to see us through future space weather.
To me, the golden thread stretches from the Met Office alerting the Government to the imminence of a solar flare, to the National Grid then having a limited period of time—if any—to implement mitigating measures.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman’s coastal region has the potential to suffer the same problems from solar flares as my coastal region, and I am pleased that he has brought this forward for the House’s consideration. Is he aware that coastal and more rural areas like both of ours would be worst hit? We need to ensure that we are not left languishing, waiting for replacement transformers. Does he further agree that planning should include specifics for coastal areas in particular?

Paul Maynard: I was fascinated to see how the hon. Gentleman would respond to the challenge of this topic in an Adjournment debate and he has surpassed my expectations. I urge him to speak to EirGrid, which is the grid that covers Ireland. I am sure it will be interested in explaining to him what actions it is taking. But there are issues we have to consider. The 2015 space weather preparedness strategy indicates that the nearest radiation monitor to the UK is in Belgium. Can the Minister confirm whether that remains the case, and whether our decision to pull out of all EU agencies in any way jeopardises our access? Either way, what steps have been taken to develop sovereign capability in that regard? When was the last Met Office review of warning systems for space weather, and what role would he anticipate for the UK Space Agency?
The British Geological Survey has three operational magnetic observatories. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the case, and explain how resilient they are in and of themselves to space weather? The 2015 review described a number of priorities for future investment. Can the Minister update the House on what publicly funded research has now commenced on space weather, as per the strategy? Can he update me further on what progress has been made in working with international partners?
The Government’s 2015 report stated
“the GB power grid network is highly meshed and has a great deal of built in redundancy. This potentially makes it less susceptible to space weather effects than power grids in some other countries. Over recent years a more resilient design for new transformers has been used to provide further mitigation.”
That is all very positive, you might think, but a 2013 report by the Royal Academy of Engineering painted a slightly different picture:
“Since the last peak of the solar cycle, the Great Britain transmission system has developed to become more meshed and more heavily loaded. It now has a greater dependence on reactive compensation equipment such as static variable compensators and mechanically switched capacitors for ensuring robust voltage control. Thus there is increased probability of severe geomagnetic storms affecting transmission equipment critical to robust operation of the system.”
That is a little less positive.
Right now, National Grid seems to be focusing on hanging on to its role as the electricity system operator, as well as balancing expanding offshore wind farms  and building interconnectors to them. Does it have the bandwidth that it needs to keep checking whether its network of transformers can withstand an event of space weather? Back in 2015, it calculated that some  13 transformers were at risk, and the likes of the US are stockpiling back-up transformers. National Grid is supposed to have spare transformers, but it is not clear how many. If we were to need more, do we even have the industrial capacity to build them, notwithstanding the eight to 12-week lead-in time, and the need to transport them by road to their destination? What more can Government do to assist increasingly commercially oriented companies such as National Grid in this regard, and what progress has been made on developing transportable recovery transformers, as was suggested as far back as 2013? What progress does the Minister believe National Grid is making on installing such mitigating inventions as series capacitors and neutral current blocking devices? Interconnectors are a good thing in themselves. They are also direct current equipment, and as such are not affected. However, during a solar flare, they may be affected, because the convertors to alternating current at either end will come under risk. As we develop ever more interconnectors, what steps is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy taking to ensure that those new interconnectors are made as resilient as they can be? Crucially, can I ask when the last national risk assessment update was conducted by the Government?
Some dangers never come to pass—Y2K passed without incident—but just occasionally, I believe it is worth posing the question “What if?” and not just trusting that it will all be fine, because that is the answer we want to hear and the alternative is perhaps far too unpalatable. Covid-19 teaches us many lessons about preparing for worst-case scenarios, and making sure that we assess all possible outcomes must surely be one of the key lessons that we learn. I look forward to learning what the Minister has to say.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I was very interested to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). He mentioned solar flares, and the fact that in the 19th century, people were very conscious of those solar flares. I would like to remind him, as I am sure he knows, that a whole economic theory about the business cycle relating to solar activity was presented in the 19th century, and there are British economists who are very interested in this subject. As a country generally, we have been very interested in solar activity, so I thank him for raising a subject that is very important. It is not as abstruse or obscure as people might think: the question we are considering is a very serious one.
Those severe space weather events are rare, but when they do occur, they can have a big impact on national infrastructure, as my hon. Friend has suggested. As such, it is—I am sure he will be pleased to hear this—a risk that we take very seriously. Severe space weather was first recognised as a risk in our 2011 national security risk assessment, and the 2017 national risk register of civil emergencies provided the most recent assessment of the likelihood and potential impacts of that risk. This assessment is kept under constant review: it is not something that we simply put away in a drawer once it was written up.
Of course, predicting when severe space weather events can happen is crucial to minimising their impact. I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that the UK is a  world leader in this area, as I suggested in my earlier remarks. The Met Office’s Space Weather Operations Centre is one of only three 24/7 forecasting facilities in the entire world. Its systems are kept under constant review, and we are constantly looking to improve how we can maximise our capacity in this area. In recognition of the importance of these forecasts and the ability to conduct forecasting, in 2019 the Prime Minister announced a £20 million boost for research in this area, which represented a near quadrupling of the amount that we were spending. This funding means that the Met Office will be able to improve both the accuracy of forecasts and its warnings.
I have to say that when my hon. Friend mentioned the three operational magnetic observatories, I was very interested. I did actually do some preparation on that topic, and I am very pleased to say that all three magnetic observatories are operational. They are situated in Shetland, on the Scottish borders and in north Devon, and they greatly enhance our capabilities in this area. They are also extremely resilient to space weather.
My hon. Friend mentioned National Grid. The whole issue of National Grid ESO and National Grid’s relationship to it is something that again is under constant review. It is the subject of some debate in the industry. However that question is answered, I can reassure him that we have a resilient energy system. I was struck by the fact that he mentioned a report from 2013. He and  I have been in the House of Commons since 2010, I think, and I hope he does not take it amiss if I say that 2013—certainly in the context of energy—is a very long time ago. We have had a huge increase in the deployment of offshore wind and we have more interconnector capacity. I suggest to him that the capacity and resilience of the system is considerably greater than was the case in 2013. Having said all that, I accept that the risk is serious, and he rightly draws it to my attention. I will take the matter up directly with National Grid and  the ESO.
As far as National Grid and the ESO are concerned, they feel that they have instigated a few mitigating measures, including increasing the number of spare transformers so that damaged equipment can be replaced quickly. We have been assured—I can revert to my hon. Friend on this—that there are sufficient spare parts to deal with the reasonable worst-case scenario, and there are plans to deploy this spare capacity. Also, critically, we have to introduce—and they are introducing—a new design of transformers, which will be far more resistant to the effects of space weather that he described.
With respect to interconnectors, my hon. Friend will know that it is a direct current but the transformers transform it to alternating current, and that is an area again where we think we can get added protection from the risks he outlined. We will publish a new space weather strategy next year, which will set out a five-year road map—a five-year vision—for how we intend to boost resilience and build on existing UK strength and capacity in this area. It will also provide what he has asked for: an update on the progress that we have achieved since the 2015 strategy was published.
The long history of close working among the  energy industry, thinkers and leaders of thought in  the sector and the Government means that we have a good understanding of the risk posed by solar flares to   the electricity network. We think we have put in place proportionate measures that will mitigate those risks, and I am firmly of the view that the system is highly resilient, but, once again, I am extremely open to ideas from my hon. Friend and from Members across the House—from all quarters—as to how we can improve our resilience and our ability to forecast potential danger in this area.
I once again thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Far from being a flippant or trivial subject for an Adjournment debate, it is my pleasure to respond on a very serious problem. I hope we can assure him that the problem is well scoped and that we have decent mitigations in place.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.